Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	I start by thanking Landmine Action and other organisations which have been very helpful in briefing me and other colleagues. I am also grateful to the many colleagues from both Houses who have indicated their support. Some from this House are not able to be here today, but support for the Bill is probably wider than the number of speeches that I hope will come in support of it. I also thank my noble friends Lord Drayson and Lady Crawley for the conversations that I have had with them and for the helpful way in which I have engaged in discussion with them—not that we left in agreement, but I am grateful for having had the chance to do it.
	I want to talk about the Bill under four headings: first, the humanitarian aspects of cluster munitions; secondly, my belief that there is no real military justification for their use; thirdly, the international aspects; and, fourthly, the arguments as between smart and dumb weapons which have featured so strongly in some of the discussions both in this House and in the other place in recent weeks.
	There was a very active campaign against anti-personnel landmines some years ago, which culminated in the successful abolition of those terrible weapons. Indeed, my right honourable friend Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for International Development, is reported recently to have told Cabinet colleagues that cluster munitions are,
	"essentially equivalent to landmines which are the subject of an international ban".
	Like anti-personnel landmines, cluster munitions remain dangerous long after the military conflict has moved on or is over. They then pose a threat to civilians: children playing or going to school, people gathering crops, collecting firewood or going for water—all normal, innocent and essential activities for people in some of these zones where there has been conflict. Those are innocent activities that may result in the loss of a limb or death.
	Perhaps I may quote my right honourable friend Hilary Benn again. In his Answer to a Parliamentary Question on 11 December, he said:
	"If they are used in large numbers, unexploded bomblets can be left scattered densely and indiscriminately over a wide area. When these are set off, the explosion can kill anyone within 50m. They represent a threat to aid workers, peace-keepers, medical services, internally displaced persons and anyone else entering an area immediately after the cessation of hostilities. The design of cluster munitions means that often children are attracted to them".
	He goes on to explain:
	"The threat to returning civilians is exacerbated when cluster munitions are used over soft terrain such as recently ploughed farmland. Unexploded bomblets can lie buried just beneath the surface making it dangerous for farmers to cultivate their land".
	That is important in the discussion about dumb and smart bombs, to which I shall refer later. The Answer continues:
	"Casualty figures are hard to verify but reports indicate that unexploded cluster munitions killed thousands of civilians in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. The UN reports around 1 million unexploded cluster bomblets in Southern Lebanon. So far, 23 civilian deaths and 145 injuries have resulted from unexploded ordnance, mainly cluster munitions. It will take an estimated 12-15 months to clear this area of unexploded ordnance".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/06; cols. 743-44W.]
	We know that sometimes that can take very much longer if the ordnance is buried, and indeed we know that there are many areas of the world where anti-personnel landmines are still there, causing enormous threat to ordinary people. We know that, for example, large areas of the Falklands are still fenced off because they are still too dangerous for people to walk on. I understand that even now in the Lebanon an estimated three persons are killed or injured by cluster munitions every day.
	According to Handicap International, although 10,000 known civilian casualties from cluster bombs have been indicated, the real figure is probably nearer to 100,000. The United Nations' most senior official for humanitarian affairs, Jan Egeland, has described cluster munitions in the Lebanon as,
	"shocking and to me completely immoral".
	The ICRC has described the impact of CMs as "horrific" and called for urgent international action. And of course not only did Israel use these weapons in the Lebanon but Hezbollah did as well, the first known case of these weapons being used by non-state armed groups—an ominous sign that the use of these weapons is proliferating. Hence the urgent need to take action is clearly highlighted.
	I turn to the question of military effectiveness. I say at the outset that it is not my intention to do anything that would weaken our Armed Forces. They are responding bravely to what we are asking them to do and I am certain that the Bill would not hamper their effectiveness in any way. General Sir Rupert Smith said:
	"It is the way military success is achieved that directly affects whether or not it can be translated into political advantage. If the military success is achieved by bombing civilian targets and causing the loss of many civilians lives, which result in strong national and international public reaction, chances are it will not be easily converted into political capital".
	He is a person who knows what he is talking about from his own experience.
	Cluster munitions have been used in about 24 different countries. I will not go through the list, but most of the areas where there have been conflicts in recent years have seen cluster munitions used. The justification for them, as I understand it, is that they are particularly effective against tanks and other vehicles, against large dispositions of troops and against runways on airports. Other speakers have far more military knowledge and experience than I could ever have, but my understanding is that cluster munitions are no longer regarded as particularly effective against tanks because they cannot penetrate the latest tank armour. As regards large dispositions of troops, I accept that in the war following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait there were concentrations of Iraqi troops, but I put it to your Lordships that it is most unlikely that we shall see large concentrations of troops in the conflicts that the world will witness in the future. I am assured by those who know far more than I do that cluster munitions are not necessarily the best weapons to use on aircraft runways and that there are other ways of effectively disabling runways.
	This country is one of the largest users of cluster munitions. Indeed, 100,000 submunitions were using during the invasion of Iraq. My noble friend Lord Drayson wrote, in a letter dated 5 December 2006, that,
	"our policy must find the right balance between humanitarian concerns and military necessity the latter being particularly important when our Armed Forces are deployed in conflict areas".
	Of course, nobody would dispute that. However, I suggest to the House and, indeed, the Government that military necessity is not a good argument in favour of cluster munitions. I have not heard a single compelling argument that only these weapons will do the job. Many other weapons will, which do not have the other consequences of cluster munitions.
	General Sir Hugh Beach said in February 2001 regarding Kosovo:
	"In the British case, the delivery of some 530 cluster bombs"—
	containing 78,000 submunitions—
	"in the course of the campaign may have resulted in the destruction of as few as 30 major items of military equipment. This achievement can in no sense have influenced the outcome of the campaign".
	It has also been alleged that in Kosovo 20 to 25 per cent of NATO cluster munitions failed to go off.
	I refer to the international aspects and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, normally referred to as CCW. Recently there were discussions in Geneva on this matter. The Government opposed a negotiating mandate but supported a discussion mandate. This seemed pretty esoteric to everybody, certainly to me. However, I am strongly advised that a negotiating mandate, had we supported it, would have been a clear sign of our intentions to proceed towards a ban, but that a discussion mandate is probably just a lot of old waffle. That is what I am told. I am not an expert on the discussions in Geneva, but I am assured that the Government's decision was very disappointing.
	Belgium has banned these munitions. Norway has declared a permanent moratorium. People say that, militarily, these countries are not as important as we are. I accept that, but nevertheless there are international moves towards banning these weapons. We are not in the forefront of those international moves; in fact, we are lagging a long way behind. Having said that, it is only fair to point out that, as I understand it, the history of arms control is usually that progress has been best achieved by a small number of countries reaching agreement and then extending that agreement more widely rather than having an agreement to which everybody signs up immediately. However, that is something for the experts to comment on. I would rather we had taken a more positive stance in Geneva than we did.
	On the argument about smart versus dumb bombs, the Government have said on countless occasions that they abide by humanitarian law and that their stance on smart bombs will be incorporated in that process of abiding by humanitarian law. The clearly stated British policy is to phase out dumb bombs by 2015. If dumb bombs are not acceptable—the Government have admitted that they are not, as they want to phase them out—why have the date of 2015? Why not phase them out now, this minute? I do not understand why we have to wait so long. It is a sign that we are not that serious about the matter. Many other countries take note of that and say, "If the British are going to use them until 2015, why should we not do so? Why should we bother?". The signal that we send out is as important as what we do; they both matter.
	In recent weeks, I have studied hard to learn the relevant terminology. Dumb cluster munitions are ones that either do not have a target discrimination capability or do not have a self-destruct, self-neutralisation or self-deactivation capability. That is MoD terminology. I think that we understand what it means. Much evidence gathered over many years indicates that, when weapons have a target discrimination capability, they sometimes do not work and that, when they have a deactivation or self-destruct capability, they also do not work. A great deal of faith is put in technology, which in testing conditions does not always live up to its promises and in battlefield conditions is even less likely to. I quoted Hilary Benn. If a bomb lands on soft ground, it is much less likely to go off than if it lands on hard ground. If a bomb's fall is broken by trees, it is less likely to hit the ground with as much force as it would if it landed on concrete. That is common sense even to someone as inexperienced in these matters as I am. All the evidence shows that smart bombs are simply not smart enough.
	The Government have gone some way to meet this concern. I understand that air-delivered weapons are no longer used. The main weight has been put on the M85, a cluster munition with 49 submunitions that scatter. My right honourable friend Adam Ingram said on 16 June 2003 that the failure rate of these smart bombs was 2 per cent. An MoD paper of March 2005 put the failure rate at 1 per cent. However, on 8 November this year, Adam Ingram said that these weapons had a 95 per cent success rate. I notice that the figure has been tipped the other way to reflect not the failure but the success rate. It does not take much arithmetic to work out that if there is a 95 per cent success rate, there is a 5 per cent failure rate. But even 1 per cent is a high figure if one thinks of cluster munitions used on a large scale and scattered over a wide area. It seems to me that the smart bomb, as I said earlier, is simply not smart enough.
	The M85 bombs were widely used in the recent Lebanon conflict and, according to David Shearer, the UN humanitarian co-ordinator in Lebanon, it has been estimated that there may be as many as 350,000 unexploded bomblets littering the country. I have seen other suggestions that the figure may be nearer to 1 million. I have seen photographs of several lying together in south Lebanon, which clearly did not go off when they were supposed to have gone off. The M85 munitions that we use are made in Israel, so they ought to be the same ones that were used in south Lebanon.
	A UN report says:
	"We can state categorically that we are finding large numbers of unexploded sub munitions that have failed to detonate as designed and failed to self destruct afterwards. In effect these sub munitions have failed twice. These M85 sub munitions are even more dangerous than other types because their self-destruct mechanism makes them more problematic to deal with and where ever possible they are destroyed in situ".
	In other words, the task of clearing them is made harder when they do not go off than it was when the old-fashioned ones did not go off.
	Another issue to do with the smart and dumb bomb argument is that, if the world is to ban dumb bombs and move to smart bombs, monitoring that will be very difficult. We had the same argument with anti-personnel landmines—that self-destruct anti-personnel landmines would be okay and the others would not be. That argument was scotched. The danger is that one cannot monitor international action if we allow some and not others. That is another case against them.
	To conclude, on the way forward, obviously I really want the Government to take over this Bill, but I suppose that that is too optimistic a hope. The Bill makes it an offence to use, develop, store or transfer cluster munitions. It bans their import and export. Under the Bill, they are to be safely destroyed. That is what I would like the Government to take on board as legislation. I understand that the UK stockpile of cluster munitions contains four different types at the moment, so we have a lot of these.
	Failing that—and I hate saying that if the Government do not accept plan A let us go to plan B, because it implies that I am conceding something, but let us be realistic—why should there not be an immediate moratorium on all cluster munitions? That would be sensible. It means that they would still be there if there was some military reason for them—which I have said there probably is not—but at least let us have a moratorium as the Norwegians have done. In any case, there is absolutely no argument for not having a moratorium on all dumb cluster munitions. Having said that they are going to be phased out, let us put a moratorium on their use now. I do not see why the Government should not do that.
	It is a privilege to have been able to introduce this Bill. This is a desperately important issue, because it is a sign of our humanity if we do ban these weapons. I hope that the House will support that, and I hope that that is what the Government will do. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Dubs.)

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I welcome this Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on introducing it so effectively and comprehensively.
	The campaign to ban cluster bombs has all the hallmarks of that to ban landmines, for much the same reasons; they are not militarily effective and they produce disproportionately civilian casualties. Worldwide, civilians constitute 98 per cent of all recorded casualties from cluster munitions. But whereas landmines were in widespread use by all sorts of groups as well as states, this campaign has come in slightly earlier, before cluster bombs are in widespread use by non-states. If we act now, therefore, we can do a great deal to stop such proliferation.
	Like others in this debate, I have read the material about the effectiveness, or otherwise, of these bombs. I have read what the Government say in their defence, and I am not persuaded by their case. It is very clear from the account of their use in the Balkans, where large quantities were used with extremely low success against armoured vehicles, that their military use seems extremely limited. We have heard that in Kosovo 78,000 cluster bombs were used, taking out only 30 major items of military equipment. Most of the UK cluster bombs are, I understand, unable to penetrate the armour of the main battle tanks that have been in operation since 1970. I will leave much of the assessment of their effectiveness to others, such as my noble friend Lord Garden, whose authority on these areas, I am sure the Minster will agree, is without question.
	During the Iraq war, there was enormous concern about the use of cluster bombs, and the UK Government, I remember, were evasive about whether they were using them. They were very keen to stress afterwards that everything had been cleared up when they admitted that they had used them. It is rather difficult for any of us to go in and check that, given the state of Iraq at the moment. What has happened in Lebanon over the summer has given further, and I hope definitive, impetus to the campaign against these bombs.
	What happened in Lebanon was controversial enough without the use of cluster bombs. There we have a fragile society, which as we speak is verging once more on collapse, and every day in the south several people, among them women and children, are killed or wounded by a previously unexploded cluster bomblet. What reminder does that serve to those who resented the incursion into their territory? When the Israeli Embassy here in Britain sends me a message about how important it is that the Government of Lebanon do not fall—with which I wholeheartedly agree—I wonder whether they regret leaving their fatal footprints in the south of the country, the daily reminders of a failed military intervention.
	The Israeli Ambassador to the Russian Federation stated on 26 July:
	"Reports of the Israeli army using cluster munitions are an obvious propaganda of Hezbollah and other organizations who do not know what is actually going on".
	He knew full well how difficult, dangerous and damaging, both to civilians and to Israel's reputation, it would be if they were used in such a populated area. On the same day, the commander of Israel's ground forces said:
	"We try to minimise their use".
	He knows both that they are being used and how controversial that is.
	"In the last 72 hours we fired all the munitions we had, all at the same spot ... ordinary shells, clusters, whatever [we] had",
	said a reservist, quoted in Ha'aretz on 8 September; the desperate but incredibly destructive reaction of an Army in retreat.
	"What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs",
	says the head of an IDF rocket unit, quoted in Ha'aretz on 12 September. They all recognised the significance of what was happening; for it is civilians, above all, who are harmed by cluster bombs.
	Cluster bombs kill civilians during attacks because they spread across a wide area. Anyone who has been to southern Lebanon will know how populated that area is. They also kill after the conflict, when civilians stumble across them. Of course, there is the wide, longer impact in that either farmers cannot use their land, or they endanger their lives and limbs by carrying on doing what they need to do to keep their farms going. For many, there is simply no choice. In Lebanon, Israeli-fired cluster munitions have damaged access to agriculture, housing, schools and water sources. Even now, bombs sit on people's roofs. In just one month after the ceasefire, bomb disposal teams had destroyed more than 25,000 submunitions.
	Each time a cluster bomb goes off and hurts someone in southern Lebanon—even though Israel is now quite desperate to shore up the Lebanese Government, and even though it is making welcome moves to talk to the Palestinians and the states around about the way forward—it is Hezbollah that benefits. If ever there was a reason to ban these bombs, you can see it in the tinder box of the Middle East.
	What is the scale of the problem? Some 73 countries hold cluster bombs. Hezbollah used them; that is said to be the first known use of such weapons by a non-state armed group, although I gather warlords in the Balkans also did so. Of course, the use of such bombs goes far wider than the Middle East. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, the UK has been a significant user of them. It dropped some 78,000 bomblets during the air campaign in Kosovo and used more than 100,000 submunitions during the invasion of Iraq. It is therefore very appropriate that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is bringing forward a Bill which, as it were, targets what the UK can legally do. After all, the Government say that it is legal to use these weapons, but we can help them to a situation where it is no longer legal for them to do so.
	Hilary Benn seemed to show some sympathy with that point of view—seemingly out of line with the MoD position—in calling for a campaign to ban cluster bombs other than those he considered "smart". In a leaked letter on 5 November he said:
	"The high failure rate of many cluster munitions, and the failure of many militaries around the world to use these munitions in a targeted way means that cluster munitions have a very serious humanitarian impact, pushing at the boundaries of international humanitarian law.
	It is difficult then to see how we can hold so prominent a position against landmines, yet somehow continue to advocate that use of cluster munitions is acceptable".
	Too right.
	For the Convention on Conventional Weapons in early November, he argued to his colleagues:
	"I believe we should go in ... advocating for a process that will lead to an effective ban of 'dumb' cluster munitions".
	In fact, at that conference, Kofi Annan called for the freezing of the use of cluster bombs,
	"against military assets located in or near populated areas".
	In a Written Answer in the Commons later in November, Hilary Benn said that there was agreement from Ministers at DfID, the FCO and the Ministry of Defence that the UK should play a leading role in pushing for an international commitment to end the use of dumb cluster munitions—that is, as we have heard, those without a target-discrimination capability or self-destruct mechanism—and phasing out the use of the UK's own dumb bombs. Welcome though that position is, it does not go far enough.
	As we have heard and will no doubt hear again during the debate, so-called "smart" bombs are hardly smart at all. The bomblets are not programmed to focus in on a particular area. What is supposedly smart about them is that they have detonators which are supposed to destroy them, should they not detonate on impact. As we have heard, not only do the bomblets clearly have a higher failure rate when used in warfare than has been indicated under test conditions but the detonators have a 25 per cent failure rate. Given the number already found unexploded in Lebanon, clearly the failsafe mechanism is not working adequately. The UN has reported:
	"We ... are finding large numbers of unexploded ... [smart] submunitions that have failed to detonate as designed and failed to self-destruct afterwards".
	We have heard that Jan Egeland has described the effect of these weapons in Lebanon as "shocking" and "to me, completely immoral".
	I feel for the Minister, a lady with the strongest of credentials in international development and a track record of support for civilians, especially women and children. I am struck that neither the MoD nor the FCO—nor, for that matter, DfID—wished to come near this subject, no doubt in the expectation that it might explode in their faces. I do not in the slightest associate the noble Baroness with someone who would argue for such weapons, and I feel that she has drawn a very short straw. I also think that the Government will change their view, but perhaps not in time to save her answering this debate. However, I suppose that that is the downside of being in government and it is what she has to put up with.
	I have some questions to put to the Minister. Has the UK undertaken practical assessments of the human impact of cluster munitions? I do not think that it has. Has the UK gathered field data on cluster bombs? I think not. Has the UK provided evidence on how its forces evaluate and control the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions? Again, I do not think that it has. I take it that she will clarify that the UK Government will abide by a moratorium on so-called "dumb" cluster bombs. Will she be able to go further than that? The UK claims that these weapons are legal; that is why the Bill is important: it would make them illegal. After all, people decide collectively what is legal, and whether these bombs should be legal is what we are considering here.
	As I said, I believe that ultimately this campaign will, as it must, prevail. As the Minister knows, the UK Government's reputation around the world has been somewhat battered in recent times, so let us at least take the lead in this area, call for the banning of all cluster bombs and put our own stockpile out of use. Let us once more show our humanitarian rather than our militaristic credentials. I hope that the Government will shortly come to support this Bill.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a serving TA officer. Indeed, my commanding officer commanded an MLRS battery that was designed to fire these weapons. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for introducing this important subject by means of a Private Member's Bill. I have been coming under considerable pressure from a personal contact in the UNHCR, resulting from the indiscriminate use of these weapons in southern Lebanon, as described by many noble Lords.
	While cluster weapons are nasty weapons, there is no such thing as a nice lethal weapon. They can all kill, they can all maim, and they can all destroy the hopes and dreams of their victims, but I am not convinced that our Prime Minister understands that. Even the humble AK47 creates misery and fear all over the world. I have only one question, but it is a little technical. Does our current inventory of cluster munitions comply with the requirements of "insensitive munitions"?
	Until recently, I slightly misunderstood the problem. For instance, it is thought that submunitions in Lebanon failed to explode because they were out of date or defective. I would be dismayed if any our weapons were either out of date—I have had a suitable response to a Parliamentary Question on that point—or unreliable. I think the Minister will struggle to convince your Lordships that our cluster munitions are reliable in that regard.
	The M26 MLRS rockets contain 644 M77 submunitions. After a short flight, the submunition is armed by a simple mechanism and when it hits a hard target it explodes. The hard target may be an armoured vehicle but if it hits any other hard surface—a rock or a vehicle—it will still explode. The problem, as identified by many noble Lords, is that if it gets stuck in a tree, lands in sand or lands in snow it will probably not explode. As there is no self-destruct facility—or, if there is one, it is unreliable—the submunition remains dangerous for a long time and, because the fuse mechanism is simple, it is very easy to set off. This causes all the problems so accurately described by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, of course, is infinitely more knowledgeable about military matters than I am and he has described his difficulties with and reservations about cluster munitions.
	As noble Lords have pointed out, the UK did not deploy MLRS on Operation TELIC in Iraq in 2003. I was there. Of course, the reason we did not do so was because we had absolute air superiority. We could attrit the enemy by air and we did not want to litter the battlefield with any more unexploded ordnance than necessary for the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
	Many noble Lords have remarked on our use of other cluster munitions in Iraq in 2003. I was one of the 25,000 British servicemen on the ground. If we had lost more than 1,000 British servicemen on that operation, I suggest your Lordships would be taking a rather different view. We believed that we faced weapons of mass destruction. We fought to win, not to lose. Do not send our Armed Forces on operations like this with one hand tied behind their back. If noble Lords do not like the consequences of an illegal and unnecessary war, I suggest they have a chat with the Prime Minister.
	Why the Israel Defense Force acted in Lebanon in the way it did is a mystery to me. What desired end-state could it have been seeking to achieve? I think part of its problem must have been poor command and control arrangements.
	Many noble Lords have questioned the utility of cluster munitions. It has been suggested that the bomblets are ineffective against the main battle tanks' armour, especially if the tank has explosive-reactive armour. But, first, there are thousands of main battle tanks without ERA; and secondly, an armoured force has many more armoured vehicles than main battle tanks. In addition, it will have vast numbers of soft-skinned vehicles. Armoured personnel carriers are designed to resist small-arms fire and shrapnel from bombardment but, unless they are something like our in-service Warrior armoured personnel carrier, they are not designed to resist shaped charges. For instance, our most numerous armoured fighting vehicles are in the FV 430 range, which are easily taken out by a top attack bomblet. Many former Warsaw Pact AFVs are just as vulnerable.
	Noble Lords have observed that some countries have, to some extent, withdrawn cluster munitions or are debating doing so. But, to be quite blunt, many of these countries do not plan to prosecute and win a large-scale, high-intensity conflict. It is our Government's policy to be able to do so. I suggest that those countries rely upon the US, UK and, possibly, France to do that task for them. Most of these states do not have a comprehensive and layered defence capability; their forces are unbalanced. I believe that there are 10,000 main battle tanks in Europe but states with far more main battle tanks than ourselves spend only a fraction of the UK's defence expenditure. They have horrible gaps in their capability, particularly in logistics, their ability to deploy at distance, intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance. In short, they are not serious and their conventional deterrent is weak. I believe that we need this capability to engage an advancing enemy armoured formation.
	Noble Lords have mentioned Kosovo, but in that campaign we saw the limitations of air power. Yes, a few platforms were taken out, but the Serb forces were much better than expected in camouflage, concealment and deception. Why we were deceived is another matter. We make a mistake by always assuming that we will have air superiority in a future conflict. Certainly that might be right in respect of a conflict of choice, but we might not have air superiority where an enemy has unexpectedly good air defences.
	However, if we are to have a system of cluster munitions, we must exercise great care in its use in order to follow the doctrine of General Rupert Smith in his excellent book Utility of Force.
	I am sorry to be unhelpful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but I share all noble Lords' concerns about unexploded submunitions—the ones that do not go off for the reasons I have explained. I believe that it is imperative that submunitions self-destruct quickly and reliably. This is for two reasons: first, on the humanitarian grounds already expertly laid out by noble Lords; and, secondly, for military effectiveness. The system would be much more effective if all submunitions exploded on contact with a hard surface or self-destructed within a few seconds. I cannot see any advantage in not having all submunitions exploding quickly after deployment. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, would agree on that point.
	Incidentally, I do not think that self-neutralisation is good enough because it would leave in place many of the problems I have outlined. There would be less military utility and it would provide a source of explosives for irregular forces or terrorists.
	Cluster munitions present a unique problem. Ordinary high-explosive shells and propellant natures can be used up on live-firing exercises—no doubt there is a cycle in the use of defence munitions to achieve that end—but, because of their nature, cluster munitions cannot be fired for training. It would be interesting to know whether cluster munitions have been fired recently on an MRS.
	So what is to be done? I believe that the Bill as drafted is undesirable, but easily amendable to permit cluster munitions with reliable self-destruct mechanisms. In the short term, the Minister should consider controls on cluster munitions, particularly a requirement for a written authority from the Secretary of State to remove cluster munitions from the ammunition depots. In the longer term, the Minister should ensure that all submunitions should self-destruct reliably.
	My fear—or, perhaps, forecast—as there are other uses for the MLRS launcher system, is that the Government will keep current stocks of cluster munitions for as long as possible until the political pressure becomes too much, and will then take the munitions out of service but will not replace them with munitions with a reliable self-destruct device because of the cost.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Dubs on introducing the Bill. This is an appropriate day on which to debate it—buried among a lot of other news is news that the Government have instructed the Serious Fraud Office to stop inquiring into sleaze in the arms industry. Cluster bombs are part of that. One reads of the huge sighs of relief from these people and that the decision has apparently been made in the national interest.
	I frequently hear that we need arms to defend ourselves, and I do not disagree, but that if we can sell as many of them as possible to other people as well, the unit cost comes down and that is more efficient, so we should export them. We seem to do this, often with allegedly massive bribes, which might have come out in the SFO inquiry if it had continued, on the basis that everybody else does it and we have to keep up with them or lose jobs. The key is not to get found out, hence the panic in much of the world over the SFO inquiry. This has been going on for years. The Conservative Party did it when it was in Government. We should give our Government credit for starting the SFO inquiry—I am rather sad that they have not been able to keep it going.
	In today's world, few of these arms are for defending the UK, and I include cluster bombs in that remark. They seem to be more frequently used for attacking others such as expeditionary forces around the world and, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, suggested, for other things as well. So it is good that landmines are already banned, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said; that has been confirmed by Hilary Benn. Cluster bombs are not any different in their effect from landmines; they are just a different means of delivery, which I am sure some of our colleagues will say is more efficient. As many noble Lords have said, these things stay around for years and kill many innocent people.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry talked about collateral damage. Probably more than 100,000 people have died in Iraq but we do not seem to be able to count them. If al-Qaeda or anybody else managed to set off some of these bombs in our suburban gardens, covering large parts of the UK with mines that hung around for years, killing our children, of course we would want to stop it and I hope that we would. But, as the right reverend Prelate said, would we really call it collateral damage? Would we not think it much better if not only was there a worldwide ban on cluster munitions but we had taken a full and proactive lead in achieving it, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said? The real difference is that cluster bombs survive for many years after the military have left; all the evidence I have read suggests that that is true.
	I suggest that we return to the ethical foreign policy that the Government started nearly 10 years ago. My party had one—the Tories never did, to my knowledge. If the Government supported the Bill, it would be an excellent way of restarting that policy.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Berkeley in congratulating my noble friend Lord Dubs on finding an opportunity to promote this Bill and an occasion for discussing a topic which troubles many of your Lordships and very many people outside this House.
	My noble friend made it clear that under the Bill, the United Kingdom would renounce the use of cluster bombs, because to use or possess them would be a criminal offence, as it would be to trade in them. And it would be a unilateral act by this country, because there is not yet a convention or treaty prohibiting their use. In that respect, there is a distinction between this Bill and the Landmines Act 1998 which implements the United Kingdom's undertakings under the existing Ottawa convention.
	Of course, most noble Lords participating in the debate hope to see a convention concluded in the near future, but, sadly, that can be initiated only by Governments; for the moment, Parliament has no role to play other than to express approval or disapproval of the actions of Governments. Some of us would like to see Parliament play a more proactive role in negotiating conventions, but that is for the future.
	Sometimes a unilateral renunciation of a detestable weapon, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, pointed out, is important not only in augmenting the respect which this country currently enjoys but in encouraging others to follow suit. We sometimes debate the merits of unilateral renunciation of nuclear weapons, but that is very different. It is argued by the Government that to renounce our nuclear deterrent would leave us vulnerable to attack. However that may be—and some of us take a different view—no one can seriously argue that only cluster bombs can deter someone who might wish to attack us.
	Many of the issues which might otherwise have confused this debate are already foreclosed. It is established in international law and, I am sure, in an international moral consensus, that a state prosecuting a war is not entitled to an unrestrained choice of method. The end does not necessarily justify the means, pace the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who for the moment is not in his place. Military necessity does not confer a blanket licence.
	At least since the St Petersburg declaration of 1868, it has been accepted that there are categories of weapon, the use of which is unacceptable. That consensus was reinforced by the Hague convention of 1899 and the conventions relating to specific weapons since the Second World War. Similarly—and perhaps more importantly for the present purpose—there are conventions to protect non-combatants. That protection is not confined to the specific conventions. There has grown up over the past 150 years a body of customary international law generally referred to as international humanitarian law. The argument that cluster bombs are unlawful is not necessarily refuted by pointing out that there is not yet a convention forbidding them. Even were that not so, to say "There is not a law against it" is not usually an acceptable excuse. We are here to examine the existing law and, where necessary, to change it.
	It is now clear, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that the character of war itself has changed, at least since the end of the Cold War. Military operations no longer normally take place on open battlefields with set-piece manoeuvres; more frequently, they are carried out in towns and villages among civilian populations. Tanks proceed up residential streets and are resisted from buildings in the side streets.
	It is difficult to target a military objective with any weapon without endangering civilians, so cluster bombs stand condemned on two grounds. First, they are liable to injure those who are not and should not be targeted. It is sometimes argued that it is necessary to balance the suffering inflicted against the advantages to be gained—in traditional international law, the doctrine of proportionality. I am not qualified to assess the advantages. I am not sure that the Government are in a position to assess the advantages and disadvantages, since we are told that they have not conducted any study of the subject. But I accept that it could not be right to inflict such harm for a negligible advantage. I have always been a little troubled by the doctrine of proportionality. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry warned us, that might appear to imply that any suffering is justified if the advantage to be gained is sufficient, pace the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I do not go along with that. It is as though a burglar were to argue, "It's all right for me to burgle that house because the damage and distress which I cause will be outweighed by the value of the loot which I take away with me".
	The second ground on which cluster bombs stand condemned is that their power to injure is not exhausted at the time of impact, as many noble Lords have pointed out. They can kill, maim and ruin lives long after the battle has subsided. We have heard more than once—and before this debate, too—the distinction between smart bombs and dumb bombs. We know, too, as some of your Lordships have said, that smart bombs, like the smart human beings, are not infallible. There are times when smart bombs can act dumb and fail to self-destruct. There are, of course, disputes about what proportion of them fail to self-destruct. In the case of the M85, estimates have varied from between 1 per cent to at least 5 per cent and some, I believe, higher.
	The problem with statistics is that they conceal as much as they enlighten. Quoting statistics can be a way of saying, "It's all right because not many people have been injured". If, as I am told, 78,000 bomblets were used in Kosovo, 1 per cent of 78,000 is the 780. That was 780 deaths and maimings waiting to happen. To the person whose legs are amputated the damage is 100 per cent.
	But the damage is not confined to individual human tragedies. The death traps left behind, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, pointed out, inhibit the rebuilding of homes and the rehabilitation of civilian populations. And they continue to alienate populations when humanitarian organisations are seeking to bring about peace and reconciliation.
	We saw in the case of landmines how public opinion can build up until it is irresistible. I believe, like my noble friend Lady Whittaker, that it is building up across the globe and that there will be a convention. That is why my heart goes out to my noble friend on the Front Bench—the most compassionate of individuals. When it comes, I am sure that she would like to say with pride, as I would, that my country gave a moral lead.

Lord Elton: My Lords, I join other noble Lords not only in congratulating the noble Lord who introduced the Bill but in my sympathy for the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, suggested that she had drawn the short straw. I recall, just after I had been appointed to my first ministerial post, meeting the late Lord Eccles in the Prince's Chamber and telling him my news with great excitement. Instead of the warm congratulations I expected, he shook his head sadly and said, "You'll have to eat an awful lot of worms". I fear that the noble Baroness may not enjoy her dinner today.
	The case against cluster munitions has been conclusively made. I wish to fortify it in only one respect: the question of the reliability of the so-called smart weapon to self-destruct. We have heard the figures of 1 per cent and 5 per cent as the likely failure rate. Those figures came from observing the campaign in Lebanon. I have seen photographs of the ground over which that campaign passed. A photograph of an area slightly smaller than this Chamber showed five unexploded bomblets in one place. Either a large number of missiles were targeted on the same garden or the failure rate was a great deal more than 1 or 5 per cent.
	That being so, I am tempted to think of reports by United Nations observers, who suggested that a more credible assessment of the failure rate may be 25 per cent. My noble friend Lord Attlee gave a most interesting dissection of the situation, and I hope that your Lordships are not tempted to expect a safe smart bomb to be available before long, because the current failure rate is the result of the best efforts of munitions manufacturers around the world, and it does not work. We have to write it off as a usable weapon in the terms described by the manufacturers.
	Will the Government confirm that they have now definitively and finally abandoned all use of airdrop cluster weapons, as alleged twice in this debate? Can we have that on the record from the Minister? If not, why not? We need to know the situation.
	My second question is whether the Bill, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is necessary. Perhaps these weapons are already de facto illegal. Article 51 of the supplementary protocol to the international Convention on Conventional Weapons, relating to the protection of the civilian population. Paragraph 4 states:
	"Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:"—
	I shall move straight to the second paragraph—
	"(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
	(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;
	and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction".
	Paragraph 5 continues:
	"Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:"—
	I shall pass again to paragraph (b)—
	"(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated".
	In Article 57, the responsibilities are given to local commanders. It states:
	"1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects
	2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
	(a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall"—
	I shall pass to the second and third requirements—
	"(ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimising, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects
	(iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life".
	There is no question that these weapons inevitably cause considerable loss of civilian life. If we are subscribers to the protocol, we seem to be in breach of it. If we are not, will the Minister tell us that we have not subscribed to that additional protocol?
	There is not much more to say. As my noble friend sits next to me, I have to hear what he says about how it looks on the ground. I sympathise deeply with him and greatly respect what he has done in the cause of this country, at a stage when it seemed so honourable and hopeful. I understand the need for every soldier to have the greatest possible weaponry to hand; but, as we have been told that the principal object of these weapons is to deal with armour, how many armoured tanks on which we rained these lethal weapons were there in Afghanistan? I did not know that the Taliban had any. The Government's statements in defence of the policy seem a little moth-holed.
	I thank my noble friend for bringing this matter forward. The reality, I recognise, is that the Bill will not get on to the statute book in its present form. I hope that it has a Committee stage, because there are ways in which it can be improved, and the discussion could improve our own approach to this problem internationally.
	On the international question, I conclude by reflecting sadly on what we did in Switzerland the other day. I know it has been dressed up as us pressing forward on the need for discussion of this important matter for another 12 months before we meet again, but unfortunately we did not press forward on the need, expressed by so many other countries, for negotiation: actually getting down to discussing what we could agree. If that is going to be the Government's attitude, there is no way forward but that suggested by the Norwegians at the conference. They have now declared that they will call an unofficial conference for those who want to go ahead. More strength to their elbows—I wish I knew what the Norwegian was for "elbow", but more strength to them anyway. They are embarking on a course that proved successful when it came to getting rid of landmines, which in my view were less objectionable creatures than these are.
	Your Lordships have heard that children are most likely to be maimed by one of these things, because it looks like something to play with. If your Lordships can do something today that will persuade the Government to take forward honestly in the international forum a campaign to ban these weapons, I will be satisfied if we do not do it on our own before everyone else does. I wish, however, to be satisfied that the Government are putting 100 per cent into their effort to get that result as quickly as is humanly possible.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on giving us the opportunity to debate this Bill. I trust that, given the almost unanimous support for the Bill in this debate, it will go into Committee and be taken seriously. We have heard speeches from noble Lords with a wide range of experience. I single out the military experience of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the diplomatic experience of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, as providing an important dimension to the debate.
	I have taken a close interest for a number of years in the question of the appropriateness of weapons that depend on cluster munitions for their effect. As noble Lords have shown as they have thrown the various statistics around, we have, sadly, been gaining much more data about their effect, particularly in many of the conflicts over the past 15 years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, Kosovo in 1999 was effectively an air campaign with the widespread use of cluster bombs. In Afghanistan in 2001, in Iraq in 1991 and 2003 and in Lebanon in 2006, a large number of unexploded submunitions have caused injury and death to civilians long after the battle has finished.
	I take very seriously the words of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. He is, after all, among your Lordships today the person with the most recent experience of the battlefield. He said, rightly, that there is no such thing as a nice weapon. By their nature, weapons are not nice. However, I assume that, just like other members of the British military, of which I was once a member, he accepts that there are certain classes of weapons that are appropriately prohibited from warfare, whatever their military utility. The right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Salisbury and of Coventry reminded us of that moral dimension and the need to align what is legal with what is right. We have accepted that in the international community. As the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, said, we have done that for 140 years, since the St Petersburg international military convention of 1868 laid down that,
	"the necessities of war ought to yield to the requirements of humanity".
	Since then, we have banned many types of weapons, despite the fact that they are probably very useful to have. We do not use them because their effects are both inhumane and disproportionate. Thus, there are bans on biological and chemical weapons, which we all accept. Perhaps we forget the much older ban on exploding bullets in 1868, the ban on expanding dum-dum bullets just before the turn of the century, the prohibition on weapons that contain shrapnel that is undetectable by X-rays, the prohibition of laser blinding weapons and, in 1997, the prohibition of anti-personnel landmines. The question for me, therefore, is whether cluster munitions, or a subset of them, fall into a similar category of weapon that merits banning. If they do, then the military utility argument no longer holds, although I will address that issue.
	We also need to keep in mind that we are making the argument to ban cluster bombs for two different reasons, which we need to put together. There is the question of the direct effect of the weapon: is it disproportionate in the way that it acts and does it cause too much collateral damage? There are also the longer-term consequences of the weapon, which is a separate problem. One can combine those issues in considering whether these are inappropriate weapons.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, reminded us that many of the weapons that we are talking about were conceived in the days of the Cold War, when he and I used to look at weapons in a different way from perhaps how they are looked at in the post-Cold War era. Then, we were thinking of an anti-armour weapon, such as the BL755 against mile after mile of Red Army tanks that may have progressed forward. That weapon was, effectively, a 1,000 pound bomb with 147 fragmentation armour-piercing bomblets. Once deployed, the bomblets would disperse and, because the bomb would be going forward, the bomblets would go forwards and land in an elliptical pattern. The size and the shape of that pattern were difficult to predict, because they depended on the speed and the angle of the aircraft dropping the canister, the height at which the canister opened and the effects of wind. There were lots of uncertainties. The higher you were when you launched the weapon, the bigger the pattern. It is normally at least several hundred metres long, however—a big area in which 147 fragmentation armour-piercing bomblets are randomly dispersed. Whatever else they may be, cluster bombs are area weapons.
	We have heard from many noble Lords that not all the bomblets will detonate on landing. That is understandable: sometimes they are too low to arm before they hit the ground; some of the parachutes get caught in trees; some strike the soft ground, as we have heard; and some just fail because, on occasion, military equipment does just fail.
	From a military perspective, there is also the problem that, because you have lots of little bombs in a big canister like an ordinary bomb, none of them can be that powerful. They are smaller than if you were dropping a 1,000 pound bomb. You have a random spread, which means that you must have your targets close together to have much hope of achieving a good military effect. Most of the bomblets tend to miss the target, which is another reason why they are scattered around. There is also the problem of the unexploded ones. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, cited the Kosovo assessment of the 530 UK cluster bombs dropped producing 78,000 little bomblets. These assessments are generally made with the most optimistic of assumptions. The weapons might have disabled up to 30 pieces of military equipment—not tanks or armour, but what are called "pieces of military equipment". That is a pretty low rate of return for a military weapon.
	These weapons are much more use against soft-skinned vehicles or troop concentrations—that is one argument that is made. We have also heard from many noble Lords that they should not be used in urban areas, yet most of the operations in which we now find ourselves have an urban dimension. As the world becomes more urbanised, that problem gets worse. Because this is an area weapon, if it is used in urban areas, where there are lots of civilians, it is bound to cause disproportionate direct civilian casualties. If you were to make a case merely on the direct effect, you would have to be absolutely confident that you were able to control targeting policies so that the weapons were used only against military targets and not places with possible concentrations of civilians. As we have seen, this is impossible to police.
	On direct effects, the military utility is not terribly high and there is the difficulty of controlling these weapons so as to not cause disproportionate damage to civilians. I have no problem with saying that one could make a case just on the basis of direct military effect that it is time for these weapons to go. As most noble Lords have said, however, the real problem is the consequential long-term effects of unexploded munitions, which potentially lie around for years. That case for a ban is much stronger.
	In the past, the Government have made the case—I think that they have now stopped—that although they are sowing what amount to anti-personnel mines, that was not the intention when the bomb was dropped and is therefore different from setting deliberate anti-personnel mines. That case cannot be sustained. We know that there will be a percentage of unexploded munitions and we must accept responsibility for them. We know that the victims are likely to be civilians and we know that children are particularly vulnerable, as many noble Lords have said. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, reminded us, however, one of the big problems is not just for the civilians, but for our own troops. As they go through what are effectively unplotted minefields or are de-mining—it is difficult to clear these sorts of submunitions—they get damaged. We lose our own troops as well as civilians and children.
	Unexploded ordnance is not a new problem. We must remember that there are failure rates, whatever weapon we are talking about. We still find live bombs left over from World War II, but we are now talking about a different scale of problem. The odd bomb that did not explode was one bomb for every bomb dropped; in this case, we are talking about hundreds of bomblets for every bomb dropped.
	The question is whether we should treat weapons with submunitions differently. It is a question of scale and risk. Noble Lords have been throwing around a lot of statistics on the percentage rate of failure and unexploded ordnance. For what we now call "dumb" cluster munitions, Governments and manufacturers tend to claim a failure rate of 5 per cent. The sales brochure figure appears over-optimistic compared to the data in reality. That is understandable; the sales brochure figures are compiled under carefully controlled test circumstances. When you are dropping a bomb or firing artillery in real operational circumstances, you tend to get a higher failure rate.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I shall come to the smart weapon in a moment. The general rate quoted by manufacturers for the dumb weapons is 5 per cent; for smart weapons, some manufacturers claim a rate of 1 per cent. Data from the first Gulf War, where the 5 per cent figure was claimed by manufacturers, have given us an actual figure of about 23 per cent. That is not an unusual difference between the two. As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, reminded us, large numbers of bombs—in Laos, for example—have an extraordinary long-term effect, like minefields. Between 1964 and 1973, the United States dropped 6 to 7 million cluster bombs. By the end of 1996, 10,000 people had become casualties to the bomblets left behind, of which nearly 2,500 were amputees. One-third of those casualties were children.
	After the Iraq intervention of 2003, the UN reported that 1,000 children were injured by unexploded ordnance—predominantly bomblets—in the three months after the original intervention. The Government position, which your Lordships have spoken about a lot, on whether we should phase out the so-called dumb munitions—those without target discrimination capability and without self-destruct, self-neutralisation or self-deactivation capability—is now at least that these weapons do not need to be kept for ever. The dates—2010 for BL755 and 2015 for the M26 MLRS—are, probably coincidentally, the dates at which these weapons were expected to go out of service anyway. That is not a respectable or responsible position to take.
	We have not talked at all today about the JP233, of which the Air Force was very proud back in the Cold War days. It was an anti-airfield weapon that not only put holes in runways, but sowed a minefield to prevent the holes from being repaired. It was taken out of service seven years before its due date, once the landmine treaty came in. We have an example of how the Government can withdraw a weapons system from service early because it realises that it is no longer appropriate. That is what we must do in this case.
	Whether non-dumb weapons—those with some self-destruct system, which obviously appeal greatly to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—get us over that problem is easy to answer. The manufacturers' aspirations—to bring the failure rate down to 1 per cent from 5 per cent—are to make it five times better. That sounds good. The 1,000 children injured in Iraq in three months in 2003 would only be 200 children maimed or killed by these new smart weapons. That does not seem to be an appealing prospect.
	I am not convinced by the arguments in favour of some division. We all know that that would create a fuzzy definition, which would allow cluster munitions to continue and proliferate. That feeling is much reinforced by the recent experience in Lebanon, which my noble friend Lady Northover and other noble Lords talked about.
	In July 2003, after the report on the children injured in Iraq, the then General Sir David Ramsbotham and I, who were not yet Members of your Lordships' House, wrote a joint letter to the Times. We wrote:
	"The use of weapons, which by their nature kill and maim civilians long after a conflict is over, have no place in a civilised country's arsenal. We should now prohibit cluster munitions, whether dropped from the air or fired from the ground. The UK could set an example to the world by removing them from our inventory, just as we have done for landmines".
	Subsequent events, particularly in Lebanon, have reinforced me in that view. I strongly endorse the attempts of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to get this Bill through. He will have the support of these Benches.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate; it is one of the most interesting that I have had the privilege to hear in my time in this House. I am grateful for the thoughtful way in which everyone has addressed this very difficult issue.
	I do not believe that a single Member of this House would want to do anything to weaken the capability and capacity of our Armed Forces. If that were the case, I do not think that those of us who have supported the Bill would have done so. I certainly would not. But I do not believe that this measure would weaken our Armed Forces any more than they were weakened by the ban on anti-personnel landmines. No one has argued that our forces are weaker in the field or anywhere else because they cannot now use anti-personnel landmines. No one has argued that from any Front Bench or from anywhere else, yet I believe that in military terms the two propositions are similar—cluster munitions and anti-personnel landmines have the same effect. Why are we against them? We are against them because, in the main, they damage innocent civilians, not just during conflict but long afterwards.
	I listened very carefully to my noble friend. We have been personal friends for a long time and I am sure that we shall go on being so. I am sorry that I have put her in a virtually impossible position, but that is what she is paid for. However, we have to look at what the Government said, and I shall read the Minister's words with a great deal of interest. In a sense, she circumscribed the future use of these weapons in such a way that I doubt whether our military would find it easy to use them. If they had the Hansard reference in front of them, they would say, "We can't do this. It's just not possible". The weapons have now been so circumscribed that I do not think their use is militarily realistic, even if the military wanted to use them. We heard that the military might need cluster munitions, but the arguments persuaded me that there is no sensible military justification for their use. There might have been in the days when the Soviet Union could deploy hundreds of tanks and millions of troops, but that is not the situation.
	Using weapons that turn people against us does enormous political damage to us and our allies, and that must be taken into account. We are not just doing this because the fighting is all; we are doing it because there are at stake issues of democracy and human rights throughout the world. If we turn people against us because they do not believe that we are sincere in what we are doing, we are not benefiting our cause. That is why I am concerned about the Government's arguments, which have not convinced me.
	Noble Lords will appreciate that so many comments were made that if I went through them all, I would outstay my welcome, and I do not want to do that. However, one point not raised; I would like to pay tribute to the very brave people around the world who go on operations to clear up cluster weapons. They risk their lives every day, whether in Lebanon or elsewhere in the world, as a consequence of these weapons. They are brave and have a sense of self-sacrifice, but, alas, from time to time they are injured or killed. We should thank them for what they do on our behalf.
	I appreciate what the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said about Lebanon and Israel. There were important contributions from the Bishops' Bench about morality and proportionality. My noble friend Lady Whitaker talked about having seen people, including children, injured by these weapons in various countries, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made clear that, even if in the past there was a military use for these weapons, the world has changed and they are no longer necessary. I was persuaded by his arguments, as I was by those of—I cannot say the Foreign Office, because that would be quite wrong—the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who was speaking in a personal capacity but whose arguments bore the imprint of years of senior work in the Foreign Office. I shall put it that way to avoid embarrassing the noble Lord, whom I have known and respected for a long time.
	The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that we should use these weapons only if—I hope I have his words right—there were reliable self-destruction mechanisms within the bombs. Given the doubts about that, I almost suggest that he is virtually on our side. I do not wish to provoke the noble Earl too much, but almost the effect of what he said is that he is with us, even if, in theory, he is not quite so. However, I appreciate that he speaks from particularly recent experience, which is very important.
	I was interested in the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about whether these weapons are not already illegal. It is an interesting argument, but we have to persuade others. My noble friend Lord Judd spoke about his time with Oxfam, and the years of military experience of the noble Lord, Lord Garden, showed in all that he said.
	I was disappointed that the most negative contribution came from the Conservative Front Bench. It was as negative as that from the Government, if not more so. I do not wish to make this debate less serious, but when I was first elected to the Commons, I voted against the Government in my first Division, and a friend of mine told me that when both Front Benches agree, the rest of us had better be careful. However, the issue is more serious than that.
	I welcome the Minister's small concession when she said that the Government would look at whether some of these weapons could be banned earlier than 2015, but I hope they will be able to go further. There is an important humanitarian cause in this. What we do and how we constrain our Armed Forces are not enough, because other countries watch what we do and take their cue from us, and they will not respect humanitarian law as our Armed Forces have to. The international dimension is important, and we must set an example.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. We have just had a most important and lengthy debate on a crucial subject, to be followed by an important but comparatively very modest Bill. If I timidly suggest to noble Lords that the debate need not take too long, it is not because the subject is unimportant but because it is relatively uncontroversial. I say that as I gaze at the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, who has recently arrived in the Chamber, maybe to take part in the debate. He nods in affirmation. He is very welcome.
	I hope that the Bill is uncontroversial. I remind the House that we have been members of the European Union for three decades and three years. There will be a major series of celebrations next year for the anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, to which we adhered in 1973. In those days it was a much less elaborate Community than it is now as a European Union.
	Disturbingly and partly because of the often very negative newspapers in this country, which sometimes seem to have a disease of chauvinism that is very distressing to the thinking reader, the public—that includes all members of the public, not just those who follow European subjects per se—are often unaware of the many complicated details of our membership of the European Union. Under the Bill the information would be freely available in public libraries, town halls and similar public buildings, as well as in central and regional government buildings. If this legislation were enacted, access both to the paper media and to the electronic media would be enormously increased, and the learning curve would be accelerated and enhanced. I say that not as a criticism of the public, who often lead busy lives with their busy families, and who do not have the opportunity for access that should have been created and which is, I believe, available in some member states.
	The Bill is modest and brief, as befits the subject. Clause 1 allows for information to be provided in lobbies, foyers or similar areas of public buildings—it would be for managers to choose. This information should be entirely objective and factual, including not only statistics but aspects, for example, where there are differences of opinion among the political processes of EU member states, where member Governments take exception to EU decisions, and where there are lobbies in different countries or collective European-wide lobbies for campaigns and issues. All that information should be freely available. As we know, the internet makes available the vast scope of all that information at the press of a button.
	I am especially keen that the explanation of subsidiarity, for example, should be properly handled, as well as the emphasis that many policy areas remain the principal or sole preserve of the sovereign member states, which is as it should be. All too often, those who may be a little more hesitant about our membership of the European Union tend to suggest that everything eventually redounds to Europe. That is far from the case.
	Clause 2 is not light-hearted—it would be impossible to make such a provision in a properly drafted Bill in this House. It deals with the demonstration of the European Union flag wherever appropriate, an issue that may be highlighted if the Bill is further discussed, as I hope. We see the European flag flown far more often in continental member states. The original six founder members, in particular, often display the European flag, sometimes alongside the national flag, sometimes on its own, including—sometimes on private buildings, as in this country. Understandably among the new 10 member states, including the two islands, there is a very strong proclivity to display the European flag. I have recently made quite a few visits to Paris, where the flag flies proudly over the French Senate and the Assemblée Nationale alongside the national French tricolour, as the Minister will acknowledge. It is regarded as perfectly normal there.
	I was sent quite a few messages about the Bill both from outside this House and from noble Lords, most of them overwhelmingly, I am glad to say, in strong support. I was particularly grateful to receive such a message from one of our colleagues here—I need not mention his name, but if I say that he used to be the head of the Met Office, everyone will immediately know to whom I refer—who said that he was sad that he could not speak in the debate but that he had always been very keen on this notion of a prominent, frequent and fairly pervasive display of the European flag alongside our union jack. In his letter, he says:
	"When I was head of the Met Office, we had 2 flagpoles ... But I was told that we could not fly the EU flag even on Europe day. I noted that the UK High Commission in Ghana flew the EU flag as well as the Union Jack while the UK had the EU presidency. But I was told this would cease when our presidency ended! Good luck ... Lord Hunt of Chesterton".
	I was grateful to receive that. Although it may seem a matter of relatively small importance compared with many other pressing European issues, it is quite important in psychological national public terms that we acknowledge our membership of the European Union with some enthusiasm and do not simply leave it to the many hotels that fly the European flag, often self-evidently for commercial convenience as well.
	Clause 3, explains the all-important matter of town twinning. Although the Bill does not provide for the financing of any of the matters it recommends, public money might be available for town twinning through the European Union's own town-twinning support scheme. Town twinning is a growing part of the European Union in general, although perhaps not so much in this country, where town twinning is mostly bilateral. Bilateral town twinning is also very precious, of course; I have been involved in it myself. This would be one of the best ways in which ordinary members of the public could learn practically about the town twinning in which they or their communities might be involved, the country it is in and the European Union, not only from visits but from information about it.
	In recent years, two-, three- or even four-way twinning has become a growing reality, aided and abetted by the European Commission town-twinning support schemes. Tempted though I am to go into enormous detail about how applicants, be they municipalities, individual entities or collective private efforts, can secure these schemes, I will resist because of time and the need to make some progress in the debate, save to read two quotations from the official documents of the European Commission on town twinning, which sum up the important priorities:
	"Town-twinning is characterised by large citizen involvement and can therefore make an important contribution towards the development of European citizenship".
	That would be alongside national citizenship, as we are citizens of the United Kingdom but also signatories of the Maastricht Treaty. To continue:
	"To this end the European Commission awards grants to Twinning events which include educational programmes on topical European issues. Priority is given to events involving towns and municipalities in the candidate countries, to new twinning arrangements, to projects involving small municipalities or municipalities in geographically disadvantaged areas, to multilateral events and to projects involving young people or disadvantaged groups".
	That would therefore be a very important priority.
	Another illustration of how this can be developed is made in the following model example of the European Commission, which does not refer to any particular localities:
	"Town X in country Y is reflecting on the development of tourist facilities to attract sustainable and environmentally friendly tourism based on recently issued EU guidelines. Town X representatives are interested in the experience of their twinned counterparts from countries Z and W with similar projects. To this end they organise a thematic conference attended by the town representatives as well as interest groups from all three towns. Optionally town X can also involve in the project its neighbouring town with its twinned towns".
	Those are parts of the configuration of possibilities, which I hope will be developed and will involve many people in this country.
	Bilateral twinning, even if it has already started, can be supplemented and augmented by a new participation in the European Union context. It is a remarkable way for not just council representatives or elected representatives on local councils, but also members of the public who follow these things in detail—football teams, musical groups, and school and educational groups—to get to know our European neighbours.
	I shall recount an extraordinary story from my constituency about the twinning of Harrow with Douai, the judicial capital of north-west France. It was one of only a couple of significant, fairly large towns left in north-west France that were not twinned with other English or Spanish, but mainly German, towns—a very interesting development. A coach of representatives was sent for the inaugural meeting in Douai. By contrast with England, where French visitors are offered a cup of tea and a sausage roll in the town hall, in France on those occasions there is usually a glass of champagne and a proper meal—be that as it may, it was not the most important aspect.
	The inaugural coach party included people who were not very keen on the twinning. The 86 year-old mother of an enthusiastic pro-European lady in Harrow went with her daughter rather grudgingly and reluctantly, partly because she had never been abroad before, coming from a poor family in north Yorkshire. It was also partly because she was interested in the history of the area and had lost three brothers and a cousin in the First World War. The woman grumbled all the way and even more as the coach approached Douai, and was very fed up at giving in to her daughter's pressing plea. However, mysteriously, just after the mayor finished making his speech at the inaugural ceremony, officials approached her and asked her whether she would like to accompany them for about two hours. As a result of journalistic contact between Harrow and Douai, the officials had located the graves where her brothers were buried, but had not found the grave of her cousin, and wanted to take her to see them. In a very short time, at 86 years old, this woman incurred a damascene conversion from being a British nationalist and an anti-European chauvinist. As an official limousine took her to the graves and back to the town hall—at the graveside, a military band played on her behalf—she became a fanatical pro-French, pro-European, determined worker for international understanding. This is an amazing story of a lady who is now deceased, but we all remember it as a way in which these things can help people to get to know and work with each other in the united European Union.
	To sum up, the provisions that I have emphasised are designed to be permissive, not mandatory, and to fill a gap in our citizens' knowledge about the EU, through information found in town halls, libraries and other appropriate public buildings. I can reassure the Government that no extra funding of any kind is required or desirable. The modest expenditure involved will be met from the existing, discretionary spending of local authority, official public budgets and central government. The only aspect where new money might be needed is town twinning, but that, too, would be very modest, carefully controlled and very adequately and fully explained.
	The Bill would address the reality that the EU flag, sadly, is not on display here so much—if you look around London you will see that to be so—except sometimes on Europe Day, which is a pity.
	This is a classic case where a short Bill can be improved in Committee if the House is generous enough to give it a Second Reading. It goes without saying, of course, that I would be happy and delighted to accept government help on any parts of it. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Dykes.)

Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I confess to a moment's hesitation before putting my name forward to participate in this debate, despite my strong support for the Bill and for the cause that my noble friend Lord Dykes has long advocated. The reason for this is that there has been a strong agreement—maybe even a consensus—in British politics over the past couple of years that Europe is best not talked about. Whether this is because of the English trait of reticence—just as we are reluctant to talk too much about religion because people feel strongly about religion, perhaps we think that we should not talk too much about Europe because people feel strongly about Europe—I do not know. However, I strongly support the Bill having thought it through.
	I question why there is this reluctance. There are several reasons and they are worth looking at as a necessary background to the Bill. Let us take one or two inconsistencies. I travel abroad a great deal, in continental Europe, Asia, Africa and elsewhere, largely in support of the English-Speaking Union. Sometimes I have had the opportunity to work with our embassy or stay at the residence and have got to know the ambassadors and the high commissioners quite well. I am struck by the number of British embassies that display the European Union flag as well as our Union flag in front of the embassy or the residence. It is not at all uncommon. So why is this perfectly acceptable abroad but somehow rather difficult with public buildings in this country?
	I have the same sort of question about the Prime Minister's speeches on Europe. There have been one or two exceptions in recent years but, by and large, all the Prime Minister's most pro-European speeches—he makes them, and he can even make them in French—are nearly always made abroad. Why are they made abroad rather than here?
	If we start to look at the reasons for this reticence, it starts to become obvious. It is rooted in the predicament of the parties. Let us look at that, because it will colour their reaction to the Bill. The Conservatives view Europe as a minefield. If they stray from a most conservative and prudent path, the rather fragile new leadership of liberal conservatism might explode on one of those mines. For that reason, David Cameron has been extremely careful not to address any issues of substance on the European Union because of the damage that it might do to his party or the leverage it is calculated it might give to the UK ostrich party, UKIP.
	The Government also find Europe difficult. I asked a Question only last week about the five economic tests for the euro. It seemed to me that if Mr Brown was to move from No. 11 to No. 10, and as he owns the five tests, we might gain greater clarity. There might even be a new sense of urgency about the matter. But the Answer I received was somewhat ambiguous and certainly not infused with any sense of urgency. I was told that all this would be looked at in several years' time.
	There are even Liberal Democrats who feel that maybe it is better not to talk too much about Europe because it is not always understood by voters. Of course, that simply will not do, for two reasons. First, there is a woeful level of ignorance about Europe and the European Union and the sort of information that my noble friend is advocating should be easily available by computer and in public buildings, libraries and schools. All the polls—MORI, Ipsos, endless Euro-barometers—show the same thing. Unfortunately, we are among the most ignorant about the European Union within the European Union. We are ignorant about how it is governed, how it works, what the institutions do, what its benefits are, and what its problems and challenges are. People really do not know and that makes them extraordinarily vulnerable to malignant journalism. I am afraid that Euro-phobic journalism has become an aspect of British public life.
	I had an extraordinary experience last month when I was in Bulgaria for the English-Speaking Union. When I got there, the ambassador said, "We have two or three lectures laid on for you, but there is something much more urgent". The much more urgent matter was a report in the Sun newspaper that morning that, from 1 January the United Kingdom had to brace itself for an invasion of HIV/AIDS. The evidence for that alarmist story in the Sun was a report from a UK health authority, which said that the United Kingdom faced a higher incidence of HIV/AIDS from immigration, especially illegal immigration—a comma was inserted here, which I know because I looked at the original document— from sub-Saharan Africa. The words "from sub-Saharan Africa" had been removed and instead we were to brace ourselves for the invasion of Romanian HIV/AIDS and Bulgarian HIV/AIDS from 1 January.
	I tell that story because it is symptomatic of something that is now so common in our journalism that we no longer notice it and nobody complains about it. We have all become passive victims of this sort of prejudice. It is deeply shocking and very upsetting, as it has been to public opinion in Romania and Bulgaria. That is what has happened and it is the reason why there is this very strange reticence.
	The other reason why it will not do is that too much is happening. There is the strange idea that a lot of us seem to have that if we stop thinking about Europe, it will stop moving. Somehow it will vanish, disappear or recede. The Channel will miraculously widen until it is thousands of miles wide, and we can all forget about it. The French shot the fox over the constitution; the Dutch do not want it; and as for the euro thing, the sky did not fall in when we did not join.
	But there will be a new president in France. There are important signs of economic recovery in Germany. The euro is in a strong competitive position with the dollar. Europe is attracting enormous quantities of investment. Make no mistake that, with a new French president, whoever that is, there will be a renewed attempt to try to establish Franco-German leadership of the European Union. Europe will not stand still simply because we do not want to talk about it. For reasons of our own ignorance, and because of its urgency, we should take this matter very seriously.
	I shall end on a different, connected thought. People who object to flying the European flag or acknowledging our membership of the European Union, for example, do so because deep down they fear it. They see it as some sort of external menace representing a fundamental threat to our way of life. I see the issue fundamentally differently. I see our membership of the European Union as an aspect of our diversity. The flag is an illustration of that diversity. Coming to the House this afternoon, I was thinking of the identities that I feel that I have. I was born in South Africa. I have worked all my life in London. My home is in Richmond. I am international by instinct and experience. My patriotism, which I feel strongly, is British. I feel European by geography and interest, and English by language.
	I see none of these identities as contradictory. Churchill had three circles. I would be happy with six or seven. We are perfectly capable of dealing with these identities, but if we deliberately try to mask or hide one—the European one—we distort our own identity. We distort it not only for ourselves; we distort it for our children, which is perhaps more serious. I am concerned about children in our schools. A modern foreign language is no longer a compulsory subject at GCSE. I very much regret that, and I think that the Government regret that decision as well. They will probably reverse it. Also, in the teaching of citizenship in our schools, the European dimension is inadequate.
	I ask the House to support this, and to start thinking sincerely and seriously about that aspect of our identity in which we are citizens of the European Union. It is by no means the only aspect, but it is one that, were we not to have it, we would be much the poorer, and our lives, and those of our children, would be at much greater risk.

Lord Chidgey: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Dykes on the Bill and on enabling us to debate it in a robust and informed environment. He ably set out the way that the Bill would provide information and statistics relating to the European Union in public buildings and on the internet, and would permit the European Union flag to be flown on public buildings alongside the British union flag—or the union jack, as some would have it, even when it is not on the jack post of a Royal Navy vessel. However, as my noble friend stressed, it is important that we should publicise the European Union's town-twinning support facilities, their scope and their benefits. I shall return to that later.
	Before speaking to the Bill, I wish to mention some of the contributions made by noble Lords in what has in the main been an informed and informative debate. In introducing the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord referred to the Bill as being modest and relatively uncontroversial. He pointed out, as did other noble Lords, the disease of chauvinism in the public unawareness of the complexities of the European Union brought about by the media. Whether one is pro or con, the question of information remains and that is sadly lacking in any depth. He pointed out the differences of opinions and the different lobby groups in various member states, of which we should be better informed in our public libraries and on the internet. He talked of the need to have an explanation of the realities of subsidiarity within the European Union and the need to display the EU flag on public buildings, where appropriate.
	I am pleased that my noble friend emphasised the all-important matter of town twinning, which has been mostly bilateral in the United Kingdom, and informed us of the movement toward trilateral, even multiple, twinning. The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, supported the Bill as flagging up—or putting a sign up for, if you like—an admirable project, but he recognised the difficulties of the bureaucratic process in enabling progress. Any such measures aimed at making the EU administration more user-friendly have my support. I noted also his comments on the benefits of providing more materials in our schools and learning establishments to demonstrate better the depths and complexities of our membership of the European Union. I also congratulate the noble Lord on his avid and robust support for the twinning process.
	The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, got to the nub of this debate by stating that we do not talk about Europe enough. How could one disagree? Mind you, we are now discussing it at some length. As the noble Lord said, there seems to be a consensus that Europe is best not talked about and that it might go away if we do not do so. That admirably felt the pulse of the debate in this country in terms of our position in and relations with the counterpart states of the continent to which we belong. The fact that our embassies overseas invariably fly the EU flag beside our national flag, while it is hardly ever seen on public buildings in the United Kingdom, needs to be addressed. That is somewhat odd and bizarre. We have also heard a great deal in this country, and in this Chamber, about the political positioning over Europe by other political parties, including my own, and how it is difficult to get a sensible and reasoned debate on Europe among the public at large, because of the way that the media, in the main, treats the subject.

Lord Chidgey: My Lords, the admirable issue the noble Lord raises could be better and more fully covered by the information that could be provided in our public buildings and libraries. I see the noble Lord agrees with me.
	Continuing with my own contribution, the provisions are designed to be permissive and not mandatory. The more regular flying of the EU flag alongside our own on public buildings could help raise public awareness and interest in the European Union and our key role within it. The provisions in the Bill fill a gap in knowledge about the EU for the average citizen through information and statistics in town halls, libraries and other public buildings.
	Apparently, no extra funding is called for, or even desired, as only marginal costs within existing local authority budgets are incurred. As my noble friend Lord Dykes has explained, the only new money source envisaged is EU funding under the Town Twinning Support Scheme, on which I shall concentrate my remarks. I, too, must declare an interest—in fact, two. First, I am a freeman of the Borough of Eastleigh, twinned with Villeneuve-Saint-George, and Kornwestheim. Secondly, I am a founder member of the Alresford Twinning Association, from a small town in mid-Hampshire twinned with Bricquebec in Normandy since 1981. In their separate ways, both interests illustrate the best in twinning and in the benefits of the EU town-twinning support.
	It is interesting that the small Georgian town of Alresford—where I happen to live, tucked away in the middle of Hampshire—has a churchyard with some rather quaint graves of French prisoners of war from the Napoleonic wars, who were held, lived and in due course died in the town. Bricquebec, the French twinned town, is just a few miles from the Utah Beach of the Normandy D-Day landings. The American cemetery at Bricquebec is a sombre memorial to the thousands of young men who died in the cause of freedom. What a contrast to the little churchyard in the town where I live.
	My other declared twinning interest, in Eastleigh, whose parliamentary constituency I represented for some years, was first approached by Villeneuve-Saint-George—about 10 miles south of Paris—as long ago as 1961 with a view to forming what was then called a "twinnage". With similar social and economic features, forming like interests between the towns was straightforward and a twinning charter was signed in 1963. This is where the point of my noble friend Lord Dykes is so strong. It just so happened that a few years earlier, Villeneuve-Saint-George had twinned with the German town of Kornwestheim, fairly close to Stuttgart. Like Eastleigh, Kornwestheim has good road and rail connections and a strong manufacturing heritage, but with ready access to extensive open spaces.
	The initiative was taken to forge links with Eastleigh and, in due course, a formal treaty of friendship was entered into in 1987. I mention these dates to illustrate how strong and long-lived these connections and developments have become. The point is that Kornwestheim's twinning arrangements with Villeneuve-Saint-George enabled those two towns to set up what was then an unusual tripartite link, where each town was twinned with the other two—a sort of mutually incluse arrangement.
	To coincide with the 20th anniversary of the twinning with Villeneuve-Saint-George, the Borough of Eastleigh's efforts in promoting European relationships were recognised by the Council of Europe. The European flag of honour was presented by the Commission's representative in Eastleigh Town Hall Centre, and has hung proudly in the council chamber next to the British flag and the borough's coat of arms ever since.
	As is often the case, the success of a twinning owes a great deal to a small group or even to just one person, as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, indicated in his opening remarks. Eastleigh is no different. It owes a great deal to Mr Gordon Cox, who taught languages at a local school. Gordon was a major influence in setting up Eastleigh's twinning, first with our French and then our German twin. He started the first school exchanges and offered his services as translator and interpreter to successive mayors on their annual visits to and from the twin towns.
	Gordon Cox has continued to be a leading light in the twinning association since it started and, at 94 years old, is unchallenged as the borough and twinning historian. Over the past decade, Gordon has been made an honorary citizen of Villeneuve-Saint-George and received two memorial medals for special merit from Kornwestheim for his work in promoting and consolidating friendship between the twinned towns. Eastleigh is recognised as a beacon council and in Gordon Cox we have a beacon twinning representative.
	On a more serious point, and one that will be at the very heart of the Bill in its progress through later stages, on Remembrance Sunday in November each year, the mayors and civic parties from the three towns gather at the Eastleigh war memorials. They remember together those who have lost their lives in war, and pledge together their determination to prevent future conflict. Eastleigh provides overwhelming proof, if ever proof were needed, of the importance of remembering the benefits that EU membership brings—of the importance of friendships between communities forged through twinning in particular.
	Like many towns, Eastleigh has several war memorials, located in different villages around the community. But the one where Eastleigh's afternoon Remembrance Sunday ceremony is held is different and more poignant by some degree. The ceremony is held in the military cemetery, close to the site of Netley Military Hospital—once the longest brick building in the country. The hospital was built under Florence Nightingale's direction, initially to care for the injured and all-too-often dying servicemen shipped home from the Crimean War.
	The hospital and the cemetery remained in use up to and beyond World War Two, as row upon row of neat, plain, uniform, military headstones bear witness. But in this Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery are not just the last remains of British troops. They lie side by side with the bones of soldiers from countries throughout Europe; soldiers who were caught up in conflicts through the centuries and brought to England, but who do not recover from their wounds. Here, on the outskirts of a Hampshire town, close by the English Channel, lies proof positive of the importance of holding true to the European Union's objective of replacing aggression with friendship among the peoples of Europe. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, may help to guide us towards that aim.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I strongly support this Bill, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley; I have great admiration for everything that he has done over a lifetime helping those with disability. I must declare an interest in that I have a daughter with multiple sclerosis who benefits from the Access to Work scheme. It is marvellous and enables her to continue working in a very responsible job in the Department of Health. I was somewhat surprised at the figures from the Department for Work and Pensions, which showed that only four people in the whole Department of Health get assistance to go to work. There must be more people with a degree of disability who merit help, but this information came out simply when Access to Work payments were transferred from the DWP to the local department. All departments, except the Department for Work and Pensions, were listed, so we wonder how many are employed in that department.
	I am aware of the extreme difficulties of succeeding with Private Members' Bills. My history of these Bills is on hedges—I seemed to be at it for ever. In the end, the Government added the issue to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, a very happy solution. But, knowing how important it is to deal with the technicalities of these Bills, and as a strong supporter of this Bill, I thought I should raise this point today. I serve on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In the previous Session, we considered this Bill and noted many technical flaws. I understand that the Clerk of the committee has written to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to explain the position, and the flaws were published in a report on 30 June 2006, in the previous Session.
	When the Bill came to our committee again on Wednesday, we were rather surprised to discover that none of our points had been taken up and the Bill had not been improved or amended to meet these requirements in any way, which is why I thought that I should raise this issue. Supporters, such as the Disability Rights Commission, do a great deal and have sent wonderful briefing on this, which I will not go into because it would take too long and I know that others will bring out its points. The case is so well known that it almost speaks for itself. But, if we place this on the record in Hansard, the supporters will know to look at these technical flaws. I refer them directly to that report.
	Most of the powers in the Bill are conferred on the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, but the Bill does not specify who is to make the regulations—the report lists the relevant clauses. The Delegated Powers Committee recommends that,
	"it should not be left to implication that these powers too should be exercisable by the Secretary of State or the NAW".
	Another point relates to the powers to make further provision. Again, the report sets out in detail the clauses concerned. It states:
	"As this is a private member's bill, there is no memorandum to the Committee"—
	the "memorandum" is usually a detailed statement sent by the government department, involved explaining the logic behind its points, but we do not receive one with Private Members' Bills—
	"to explain the delegations and so it is not apparent to us why these powers are needed or appropriate. Accordingly we draw them to the attention of the House so that a further explanation may be given".
	On the parliamentary procedure, the report states:
	"All of the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by the bill (except that in clause 24(2)) are made subject to affirmative order by clause 36(2), including commencement orders and orders applying to the bill with modifications for the Isles of Scilly. We draw this to the attention of the House because we do not think this can have been intended, as the only power in the bill which seems to warrant affirmative procedure is that in clause 3 to extend the definition of 'disabled person'".
	These are highly technical points. By putting them on record in Hansard the people working on the Bill will have the opportunity to study the defects and to consider how to overcome them.
	I have found from personal experience that the Public Bill Office is marvellous at helping to draft amendments. The amendments to this Bill would need to come forward in Committee. It would be rather onerous on the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to be asked to table all the amendments himself. I am sure that, if the Public Bill Office were to issue a list of the required amendments, many Members of the House would be willing to table amendments and to speak to them. This would not be opposed by anyone in the House because we all want to see the Bill go through. That deals with the technical points.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that this might cost far less than expected. The noble Lord referred to housing. I have always been upset that in this country a house or residence of any type designed specifically for a disabled person is not necessarily passed on to another disabled person. I have seen expensive adaptations being ripped out and I find it tragic that there is not a central place to which they can be taken. A neighbour of mine put in a chair lift and used it for only about a year before she died at a great age in her nineties. But afterwards, when the executors asked me to try to find someone to take the chair lift or to use it, there was no system into which it could go to be re-used or to benefit anyone. I considered it very wasteful that something like that, which had cost a lot of money, was just discarded.
	In Australia—and, given the cricket, I hardly dare mention Australia, although this test match seems to be a bit more even—certain properties are designated for disabled people. Very often a charity or a similar organisation owns the building. That organisation will give a person a lifetime lease or tenancy of the property, and when that person dies—if the spouse survives, he or she can remain there for the remainder of his or her life—the house is not converted into a "des res" for anyone to live in; it continues to be a useful property for another disabled person.
	Under "disabled" I include those people who have not a lifetime disability but a disability due to their lifetime and wearing out in old age. Many people come into that category, and there will be many more as life goes on—although yesterday, at the Royal College of Physicians, we were all cheered to be told that we would live longer but not live badly any longer; that the difficult period of our lives will still be fairly short at the end. That was good news.
	There is a vast and growing need for help of all kinds for disabled people. The provisions referred to in the Bill—the rights of choice, short breaks, mental health support—are very important. I could go on and on, but I will not do so because the argument is well made. I want only to express my support for the Bill and to draw these technical matters to the noble Lord's attention.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill, so comprehensively explained and compellingly argued by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. I applaud his unfailing spirit and tenacity and regret the absence of that other tireless campaigner, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, who sends his apologies. This House and many other people, not only those with disabilities, owe them both a great deal.
	At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, said:
	"I hope that today I have planted a seed in Parliament that will be transformed into a mighty piece of legislation, giving to Britain's disabled people the freedom and independence they cherish and which they have been denied for too long. The Bill is a blueprint for the future, but the time to embrace it is now".—[Official Report, 14/7/06; col. 957.]
	We need a design plan to help resolve the problems highlighted in the excellent debate last Thursday of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Lockhart. I hope that the technical, detailed points of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, may firm up the blueprint.
	I should like to add my thanks to the Disability Rights Commission as a whole and, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to the extraordinary Caroline Ellis. The DRC has described the Bill as a timely response to the crisis in social care. Our social care system is certainly in need of wholesale reform. That is not just the view of the Bill's main supporters; it is what several senior local authority managers are saying. The current system is unable to meet the needs of those who use the services and will be unable to meet the challenges of growing expectations and demographic change. The symptoms are clearly visible: the majority of councils can now provide nothing to those with more moderate needs; families and carers are at breaking point; and shocking case studies are gathered by the DRC in its recent Independence Day report on disabled people prevented from working, kept apart from their families and deprived of basic, essential support.
	At Second Reading, I concentrated on personal care. I will spare your Lordships a repeat, except to explain and declare my interest. I will then touch on a couple of wider implications on which I hope the Minister might give her views, follow up with a question I raised last time and ask a new question. I said in that debate:
	"I must declare a close interest, in that I have for the past four years needed increasing amounts of help with personal care: washing, dressing and getting out of, and now getting into, bed. I am in receipt of a higher rate of disability allowance, which in no way covers all the costs. I do not qualify for any further financial help. I add this only to make it clear that this is not a personal moan, but one on behalf of all those who cannot manage and are not in control of their lives".—[Official Report, 14/7/06; col. 968.]
	Recent reports from In Control, a body which comprises Mencap and Valuing People and is developing new systems of self-directed support with local authorities, similar to those proposed in the Bill, supports the case for change. Its initial pilot—I think there were six—demonstrate major improvements over a range of outcomes, increased numbers of disabled people in paid work, and strengthened family cohesion. Everyone who was in residential care at the start of the pilot, including those with learning difficulties, was able to move into the community, in many cases at a greatly reduced cost.
	In Control says that the efficiencies released by reform could be absorbed by more people claiming rights to support, but that is precisely what needs to happen. We need a system that can deliver real choice and participation for the many rather than inadequate care for the few.
	I turn now to the wider-scale effects on women and carers. As the Minister will know, the DRC has worked closely on issues of reform and investment in social care with Carers UK and the Equal Opportunities Commission, both of which have expressed strong support for the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. This is not just a Bill for disabled people; it is now seen as a Bill for carers; it is a Bill for women struggling to build up adequate pension provision for the future; and it is for the one in four families affected by disability. It will contribute to greater gender equality and it is strongly supported by the EOC, which concludes in its briefing:
	"The reality of an ageing population means that social care can no longer be regarded as a 'private' matter. This Bill will help ensure that there is support for disabled people, people with health problems, older people and carers in 21st Century Britain".
	I hope that the Minister might comment on the benefit for women and agree that the Bill could have a major beneficial impact on the life chances of the 175,000 young carers who, according to research by Barnardo's, Carers UK and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, provide day-to-day support for disabled parents, primarily because their parents are not receiving adequate statutory support, or because they fear involving social services.
	The Bill provides explicit rights to disabled people to be supported with parenting and other key aspects of daily life, and new safeguards to ensure that families can stay together. Over time, this will surely eradicate the serious educational disadvantages and the health problems that so many young carers face. I know that my noble friend Lady Finlay will talk a bit more about young carers.
	I raised some specific points for clarification at Second Reading. I asked why earned income was not excluded from charging assessments for disabled people in residential homes, and cited the case of Doug Paulley, the talented web designer who has been headhunted but cannot take up the job because of the huge financial disincentives. He could keep only £20 of anything he earned, and the rest would be absorbed by care home fees. I argued, first, that the life chances report said that that should be looked at. Secondly, I said that, as it would not affect a huge number of people, it would hardly make much impact on public spending while having the huge benefit of enabling people like Doug to work. The Minister said that she would look at the matter, and I hope that she can give me an encouraging reply or say that the Government will treat it as a matter of urgency.
	My final question concerns the impact of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 on disabled people's choice of carers, and on specialist care agencies. Peter Henry, who is tetraplegic and needs 24-hour help, also runs a care agency, which specialises in the recruitment, employment, placement and management of live-in carers for spinal-injury disabled adults. I have used the agency on several occasions, and can vouch for the quality of the specialist training and the appropriateness of the placement of carers.
	His concerns are both as a service user and provider. As a service user, he prefers an age range of 21 to 45 because of companionship and shared interests. You are inviting someone to share your life and to go everywhere with you. Motor insurance is prohibitively expensive if the carer is under 21. It is a physically demanding job, so an older person cannot really do it. It requires intimate personal care. Spinal-injury trained carers are trained to do things such as manual evacuations, which the average carer is not trained to do. There is also the issue that an adult can choose who enters his home to share his life. He has a choice.
	As a service provider, Peter Henry matches the carer to the client. Again, that is based on choice and lifestyle. He has done some research, and can statistically prove that clients strongly prefer the 21 to 40 age range. Until now he has advertised for carers in that age range. He has been trying since the summer, so far without success, to ascertain whether his company can use Schedule 8 to the regulations, by which they could deem the advertisement age band a genuine occupational requirement, or indeed any other clause to exempt his advertising and recruitment. The Minister has a copy of his letter, so I will not go into further detail; suffice it to say that he cites bits in the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act that would deal with the problem from that point of view. Indeed, the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, contains clauses that may be able to deal with it.
	I hope the Minister will be able to give an answer—and, I hope, a positive one. If it is negative, I hope we can take the issue further and try to resolve it. I look forward to her reply, and wish the Bill a speedy journey much nearer to the statute book this time than it got previously.

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to congratulate my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke on reintroducing his Disabled Persons (Independent Living) Bill, especially so early in the Session. I also add my thanks to the Disability Rights Commission, especially Caroline Ellis and Dr Graham Nixon for their help and advice. Organisations of and for disabled people have given the Bill their warmest welcome, and endorse the words of the National Centre for Independent Living:
	"It is now becoming an essential piece of new legislation".
	I also congratulate the Minister on her announcement, in her closing speech when the Bill was introduced, of the review by the Office for Disability Issues of independent living. I hope that the Government's appointment of the two disability experts, Dame Jane Campbell in the chair and Dr Jenny Morris to lead the team, demonstrated their commitment to tackling the wide range of issues that need action if the Government are to attain their objective of opportunities for all disabled people by 2025. That task is no easy one, and it desperately needs this Bill for it to succeed.
	There is one great sadness today, however. I know I speak for all noble Lords in missing the enormous contribution the noble Lord, Lord Carter, would have made to this debate. He has fought for the independence of disabled people, for our dignity, choice and control, all his personal and political life. He would want to be here, and he is very much in our thoughts. We send him and his wife Teresa our warmest love and best wishes.
	As I said when the Bill was introduced, I believe the Government need this Bill. In the words of NCIL, it will,
	"provide the practical steps necessary to turn the Government's visions into concrete reality".
	NCIL goes on to say that,
	"we have seen the presentation of the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit report, Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People, the piloting of individual budgets, the White Paper, Our Health, Our Care, Our Say, the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 with the new disability equality duty, all demonstrating this Government's commitment to the principles behind independent living. And yet, in spite of this commitment in policy and principle, in practice social care appears to be in crisis".
	As the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has already pointed out, 70 per cent of local authority social services departments are now offering community care support only to disabled people whose situation is critical. NCIL goes on to say that,
	"reports we are getting from our member groups indicate that direct payments are now being offered in smaller and smaller support packages. Many disabled people now have considerable difficulty getting support for anything other than basic life and limb support, with little or nothing available to support family life, or community-based activity".
	I spoke at length when my noble friend first introduced his Bill and I hope not to repeat myself. But I want to concentrate again on the crucial issue of housing. I particularly welcome Part 4 which deals with housing, as I believe that accessible and affordable housing is the very bedrock of independent living. Our housing stock lasts decades, much of it for over a century, so it is essential that we act now to provide for the independence of generations to come.
	Yet, accessible housing it is not regarded with the urgency which it deserves, but I welcome the mention that it has received today. In its 2003 survey of physically disabled people the charity John Grooms found that 40 per cent of the respondents lived in houses that made them unnecessarily dependent on other people. Evidence from the 2003-04 Survey of English Housing published in April 2005 indicates that an estimated 1.4 million disabled people in England are in need of specially adapted accommodation. Of that total, nearly one quarter currently live in unsuitable accommodation.
	The current housing situation of disabled people is dire and the demands of our ageing society, the growth of single households and increasing expectations among disabled people will only make the situation worse. Yet, sadly, the Government's action, or inaction, since the summer has failed to acknowledge the urgent need for action. As a result, the housing clauses set out in Part 4 of the Bill are even more necessary. First, on the inaction, we continue to await the Government's response to the research that they commissioned from Bristol University, Reviewing the Disabled Facilities Grant Programme, which the ODPM promised for,
	"the early part of 2006".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/05; col. 13WS.]
	That research clearly set out the need for a strategy across government departments that considered the costs and benefits of disabled facilities grants, linking them with other housing, health and social care policies in order to achieve the best use of resources. I hope that we will not have to wait much longer for the Government's response.
	In the past few weeks the Government have published the revised PPS3—the planning policy guidance on housing and the revised code for sustainable communities. Neither of those has addressed the urgency for strong Government action on accessible housing and both documents have ignored the DRC's recommendations. The DRC had argued that, as a minimum, all new housing should be designed to the lifetime homes standard to meet the needs of occupants as they change over time. While PPS3 places welcome emphasis on insisting that local authorities should plan strategically for the long term and states that developers and planning bodies must take account of the need to cut carbon emissions, the requirement that homes are built to the lifetime homes standard remains just a voluntary matter.
	While I welcome the Government's commitment to environmental issues, the Department for Communities and Local Government has failed to seize this opportunity to incorporate lifetime home standards into building regulations, despite being urged to do so by successive government reports. These include the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit report, Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People, the Social Exclusion Unit report, A Sure Start to Later Life, as well as that of the Lords Science and Technology Committee. The DRC is firmly of the opinion that this would not represent an additional burden on business. In evidence, it cites the fact that Habinteg Housing Association states,
	"that building to LTH standard adds less than 1 per cent to a housing scheme's development costs. This is then repaid in reduced expenditure on adaptations".
	The DRC also points to the situation in Northern Ireland, and states that there,
	"the cost to building to Part R (the equivalent to the English Part M) or increasing the standard to LHS ranged from £165 to £545 dependent on house size, layout and specification"—
	that is hardly a large sum—
	"This additional cost would be recouped between 3 to 10 years due to reduced expenditure on adaptations".
	That is but one example of spending wisely in the present in order not to waste money in the future. Housing is but one aspect of this extremely important Bill, which also makes provision for not wasting government resources and spending wisely for disabled people. It is a broad and wide-ranging Bill, offering solutions to the current wasteful, over-bureaucratic and utterly frustrating situation which disabled people face today. It offers the Government a new legislative framework which could ensure that their vision of equality of opportunity for disabled people by 2025 would indeed become a reality. I hope that they will grasp the opportunity with both hands.

Baroness Verma: My Lords, I am pleased to take part in this debate and wholeheartedly support the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, on an incredibly vital Bill. I declare an interest as an independent provider of care, supporting independent living.
	Jenny Watson, chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission, said of the Bill:
	"Lord Ashley's Bill should be welcomed by us all—because one day, we all may need the support that it provides".
	It should be unacceptable to us in 21st-century Great Britain, often cited as the fourth- or fifth-largest economy in the world, that we still have too many people living in circumstances quite unsuitable for even a basic existence. Some 1.4 million disabled people live in homes that need some form of adaptation, and nearly 330,000 live in homes totally unsuitable for their needs.
	Recent years have seen a decline in what is available in care packages for the disabled and elderly. They are often reduced without warning and usually with no back-up support to family members. Earlier this week, we discussed the deficits in the NHS and the profound effect that was having on other government departments, having to pick up care provision without adequate support, funding or training. Time and again, the very people who need help and support in ensuring that they do not burden the state and that they enjoy access to as much independence as possible are being driven to lives of isolation and entrapment in their own homes, with little or no access to the outside world.
	The work of our unsung voluntary and paid carers saves the country huge amounts of money, but we cannot keep removing the pillars of support enabling them to do so. The current level of bureaucratic tape and the many different departments which must be dealt with are a particular worry. There often seems to be no partnership thinking at all. Every department follows duplication, triplication and more information required before a sensible package can be discussed. The user has little control in any planning of care or provision.
	From my own personal experience in care provision, I know that people have often been encouraged to live independently but without proper aids or support packages in place. I could give numerous examples, but shall give only one or two. A service user's only requirement for access to the outside world was a ramp, so that the wheelchair he sat in all day could go out of the house. One and a half years later, there was no ramp, but the service user had passed on. My other service users want to go out shopping, but there are few facilities for adapted taxis to come and pick them up, or for trained care support to assist them with their shopping. If there are no facilities for day centre placements, most service users spend hours home alone. How much companionship can a television offer?
	While we all maintain that our human rights are breached if we cannot access services which we believe are ours by right, how can it be right that, in planning and developing packages to enable people to live as independently as possible, those people have so little say in the matter? We all demand and expect that we are given proper opportunities for education, employment and training. We all expect and demand that, if the system fails, we will receive compensation and support. Local authorities need to work much harder in partnership with employers and educationalists to ensure that opportunity is not denied. They must offer greater access, not only to enhance individuals' lives, but to reduce the costs to local authorities.
	The funding of social care has to be seriously revisited. As our ageing population is set to outgrow our working population, it seems only sensible that time, money and thought spent now will alleviate many of the problems being stacked up for the future. Will the Minister assure the House that no further cuts will take place to care packages being carried out now, and that she will revisit how care packages are assessed and see how these can reflect a more interactive participation in the wider community?

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the temptation on an occasion like this is to recycle the speech one made last time. I shall resist that temptation. I do, though, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, on bringing his Bill forward again. However I must warn him that what he seeks is one of those issues that seem to take a long time to bear fruit. However, as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said, perseverance pays. I know, of course, that my right honourable friend David Cameron has written to the noble Lord on the subject of independent living for disabled people, saying that my party desires it for as many people as possible, both for those who are disabled and in the social care field more widely. I hope and trust that I have never given the impression that I believe anything different. If I have, it is certainly a subject that would cause my days on this Bench to be numbered.
	What I do, and always have done, is base my consideration of any issue regarding disabled people on a very simple concept upon which no one anywhere has ever contradicted me: that disabled people are people first, disabled second. It follows from that that I believe that disabled people should have the same rights as able-bodied people. I believe that, on the whole, they have those rights but are unable to access them because of discrimination.
	So, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has highlighted this afternoon, disabled people still have quite a long way to go to catch up with able-bodied people. There have, however, been great strides in this direction. My right honourable friend Mr Hague introduced his disability Act in 1994, and this Government tightened it up in their amendment Act which we discussed in the 2004-05 Session. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will not have to wait yet another 10 years to get a Bill like this one on to the statute book.
	Returning to my concept, I find that Clause 1, especially subsection (1), fleshes that out wonderfully. The problem is, though, that there are many areas of our national life where disabled people have become, or indeed always were, second-class citizens. I single out in particular transport, housing and healthcare. On transport, of course, we as a nation are getting there. More and more buses and trains are being equipped with sight and sound machines, for want of a better description, so that if you are blind or deaf you can be told that a train, for example, is now arriving at such and such a destination—something that an able-bodied person would be able to tell almost automatically. Why, oh why, though, does my London bus tell me only that it is stopping at the next stop and not what, or rather where, that stop is? Trains and modern black cabs—if you can afford to use them—now almost invariably have ramps for wheelchair users, and modern buses have low-level access. I am the first to acknowledge, though, that none of this is universal and that, as a nation, we still have quite a way to go.
	I wish that I could say the same of the housing and health and social services of this country. First, I shall deal with housing. In our debates on the 2005 Bill, we pressed the Government hard on the need for local authorities to have a list of properties in their area that were suitable for disabled people. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, waxed lyrical on this issue. Even though the best local authorities already have such lists, the Government refuse point blank to make it a general requirement, for what I regard as a most spurious reason; namely, the need for constant revision and the fact that all dwellings would have to be surveyed originally. What nonsense. A reporting requirement is all that is necessary. There can be no downside in landlords and owners having an obligation to inform the local authority of adaptations making their properties suitable for disabled people. Nine times out of 10 they would need planning permission anyway. The Government pride themselves on joined-up government, not always realistically, as I pointed out on Wednesday, so why not joined-up local authorities? Anyway, if Liverpool can do it, why not Hounslow or wherever?
	I think that the real grouse of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is about access to health and social services, on which I am afraid an unhappy picture emerges, as we have heard. It has been the law for some time now that health services in residential homes are free. However, it just is not happening, mainly I suspect because there is no definition of health services and because, unlike in Northern Ireland and Scotland, health and social services are not run by a single authority in England and Wales. The result is that each guards its budget very carefully, to the huge detriment of those it should be spent on. If they are conjoined into the same health and social services authority, this simply does not happen, as I know from my time in Northern Ireland Where the money comes from the pot, people benefit.
	This joined-up thinking extends to the right of an individual, disabled or not, to refuse residential care. Why should people be shovelled into inappropriate "boxes" against their will? The answer surely is that it is more convenient, though by no means cheaper, for social services. The figures speak for themselves. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, said, the government-commissioned report Reviewing the DisabledFacilities Grant Programme tells us that the average cost of independently provided homecare in 2005 was £4,800 and that the cost of residential care is now £36,000 to £40,000 a year. The Government's response was due early this year. It is now almost next year. Why the delay?
	Then in care homes, we know all about the problem of social service workers and the health service making the necessary investment in things like chiropody, physiotherapy, rehabilitation—perhaps after a stroke, in which I declare my usual interest—and general confidence-building. There simply is not enough joined-up thinking here, when some of the requirements must come out of the NHS budget and others from the local authority. The answer of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to this is to have a joint pot of money, distributed to individuals to promote their capacity for independent living and to spend as they want. This proposal causes great sucking of teeth. "How", the authorities ask, "will we know that the money is being spent appropriately by the recipient?". What no authority is prepared to answer is the question: does it matter? Does it matter, that is, as long as it keeps people out of hospital and care homes? Speaking personally, I do not think that it matters one jot.
	The same applies to dying in dignity. We in this Chamber are lucky enough to be able to exercise that right. Millions outside, however, are not. It is rare indeed for people to spend their last days in a hospital ward with dignity, especially in mixed wards, which have been so much in the news lately.
	There are occasions—far too many, I am afraid—when disabled people are expected to conduct their own affairs with officialdom. I agree that it should be automatic for someone with motor neurone disease, deafness or mental health problems and so on to be able to take an advocate with them to, say, the jobcentre, hospital or local housing authority. I am not, however, saying that the advocate should necessarily be paid for by the state, or indeed at all. I am saying that there should be no bar to access, and I shall be exploring that in connection with the Welfare Reform Bill.
	In the same way, why cannot one part of officialdom trust another? I ask your Lordships to envisage a situation where a person becomes disabled. He is assessed for his needs in one part of the country, lives there for a bit and then wants to go and live with, or closer to, another member of the family many miles away. Why should he then have to be reassessed, with all the trauma and extra costs to the authorities that that entails? Those costs are huge. I am told that assessment and commissioning amount to 32 per cent of the total cost for people with learning difficulties, 19 per cent for physically disabled people and 26 per cent for families with disabled children. To have to incur these costs again and again, and sometimes even again, is, to quote the late Lord Hailsham, stark staring bonkers.
	To sum up, the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is, as usual, in the right place, as is shown by the ringing endorsements that he has received from both the Director-General for Social Care and the Local Government Association. I warn the Minister that the noble Lord always gets his own way in the end.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am always in favour of systems of best practice. That is an excellent idea. I will look into it. If it is not in being, it clearly should be.
	People tell us that they want to take control of their lives and choose the way that they are supported. They want to shape their own future and make their own decisions. They know where the shoe pinches. The Government are clear that for social care, putting power in people's own hands is the way forward. A modern system should put people in control by offering personalised services and giving them the freedom to choose the type of support they want. We are committed to driving this forward through the individual budgets initiative, the in-control programme and work on promoting and increasing the take-up of direct payments. These are not separate initiatives or fleeting experiments, but the future for social care in the next decade and beyond. We are determined to make this approach work and will bring together learning from the three programmes to tackle any barriers, share best practice and build momentum for that vision.
	The individual budgets pilot programme being led by the Department of Health across government is a key driver in this strategy. We have commissioned a comprehensive evaluation of the pilots to make sure that we are gathering the evidence that comes out of them. This will identify whether they can be delivered within our existing resources, whether they are delivering benefits to the people who use them, and whether there are blocks to delivery which will need to be overcome. The evaluation will also look at whether there is a particular model or models of the individual budget programme that work best for people with different needs. We do not expect to have final evidence from the pilots until spring 2008. Therefore, it would not be sensible to have a statutory requirement for the introduction of the individual budgets approach until we have seen the results from the pilot projects, and have had time to consider all the evidence.
	With the individual budgets initiative and services focused around the person, joint commissioning is needed to bring the services together. The evidence shows that partnership arrangements and joint commissioning are increasing significantly. Perhaps the greatest change in bringing health and local authorities together to meet individual needs will come through the White Paper on local government, with its emphasis on more robust local area agreements, which will enable services to determine jointly what people need in terms of health, housing and social care, and to plan, provide and fund in partnership joined-up thinking, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. Each local authority will be required to have a lead member on health and well-being partnerships—the very person to knock those heads together, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The health service will have a duty to co-operate with local authorities through the statutory local-area agreements. I have heard noble Lords' concerns that local authorities are raising the thresholds for access to care. It is, of course, for local authorities to ensure that they provide or commission services to meet people's eligible needs, subject to their resources and with regard to guidance on fair access to care services. We know that local authorities have to make difficult choices. The Commission for Social Care Inspection has recently reported that most local authorities are making the threshold substantial, but that does not mean that the system is excluding those who need lower level services, although I hear the very clear statement made by my noble friend Lady Wilkins.
	Key to ensuring that people receive the support that they need and want is assessing their needs in the right way. I have heard and understood the frustrations that too many people have encountered when facing multiple assessments. By requiring health and local authorities to implement a single assessment process, the Department of Health intends to ensure a person-centred approach to assessment and care planning for people regardless of organisational boundaries. This will ensure that people receive appropriate and effective support.
	We are developing a common assessment framework for adults by building on, and extending the scope of, the single assessment process. As with the existing single assessment process, it is proposed that the common assessment framework will cover several domains in order to take a holistic view of an individual's circumstances and to identify any risks to his or her independence, and the need for support.
	There is so much I could, and would like to, say about carers and the measures that the Government have implemented to support carers of disabled people. By 2008, we will have invested over £1 billion in support for carers. But we must, and will, do more. I am pleased that the work on the new deal for carers, announced in the White Paper Our Health, Our Care, Our Say is well under way. We are very anxious to take a fully inclusive approach on this project, and the project director is working closely with carers' organisations to ensure that we do so.
	We are anxious to ensure proper support for young carers and the provision of short breaks for carers. I fully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, that we owe a huge debt to young carers especially, and we must ensure that we consult them when we make policies. The Government are increasing the carer's grant this year, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, pointed out, will assist women.
	The Bill includes several proposals on housing and accommodation for disabled people. The Government fully recognise that it is extremely important that disabled people with access needs are housed appropriately and are given the correct priority for housing. That is precisely why we have amended the legislation governing the way in which housing authorities allocate social housing.
	The changes that we introduced under the Housing Act 2004 were intended to meet precisely the sort of concerns the noble Lord's Bill has identified. The term "medical grounds" was being interpreted too narrowly by some local authorities, and disabled people were being disadvantaged as a result. The Government also want to see social landlords making the best use of housing stock, including accommodation that is accessible to, or has been adapted for use by, disabled people. We recognise that accessible housing registers can be useful, and the current statutory guidance to local authorities on the allocation of accommodation encourages their use.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, mentioned stair-lifts. These are usually provided under disability facilities grants, which have been doubled to £120 million since 1997, and the Government are looking for new ways to simplify and improve the delivery of the service to make it more flexible and accessible. The Department for Communities and Local Government will issue consultation options early in the new year for revising those grants.
	In answer to my noble friend Lady Wilkins, the Government will take forward lifetime homes in the first instance through the code of sustainable homes, which will get the standard out to builders more quickly than through regulation. We will keep it under review.
	A huge issue for many disabled people is to secure the support of their peers to help them to take the choice and control of their lives that we are aiming to deliver. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, who has great experience in this area, mentioned user-led organisations, which are a key element in providing this peer support. A strong support network is essential. This is often best provided by bodies led by people who have themselves experienced the barriers that so many disabled people face in achieving equality and independent living.
	Working closely with the ODI, the Department of Health is taking forward an ambitious programme to deliver the life chances report recommendation that by 2010 there should be a user-led organisation, modelled on centres for independent living, in every local authority area. Working in partnership with disabled people and key organisations, including the National Centre for Independent Living, the aim is to map the current position, identify barriers to the establishment and continuation of user-led organisations, and develop proposals to increase capacity. Early in the new year, the Department of Health will lead a series of regional and national conversations with disabled people, their families and representative organisations on how to deliver this key recommendation. Only this week my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Ivan Lewis, discussed with Dame Jane Campbell further options to make this goal a reality.
	In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the Government have not costed the Bill, although work is in hand to establish the cost-benefit case for independent living. On whether anything in the Bill is not covered by evidence at the moment, some issues are not covered—for example, a register of disabled people, the duty to enhance the capacity of service providers and discounted disability benefits.
	The Government are committed to working to deliver equality for disabled people, but that will take time, as will the improvement in public services which are necessary for disabled people. That is precisely why we have set out a 20-year strategy. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ashley for enabling us to have such a high-profile debate on these very important issues. However, the Government are not convinced of the need for all aspects of this legislation at this time. There are parts of the Bill with which we might disagree or that we believe are already achieved through existing provisions. There would also be major cost implications if all that is proposed were implemented at the pace implied in the Bill.
	We should not forget that the substantial programme of work which the Government have set in train in publishing and responding to the challenges of the life chances White Paper, in delivering the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, in programmes to implement the White Paper Our Health, Our Care, Our Say and the local government White Paper will mean delivery of our shared goals without imposing new legislation. But debate on the detailed clauses of the Bill is for a later stage.
	At this point, I am very happy to welcome the principles underpinning the Bill, and to congratulate again the noble Lord on enabling the House to address this issue, which is of importance to all of society, but is central to the lives of people with disabilities. I hope I have demonstrated that this issue is close to the Government's heart and one on which we have already achieved much, but on which there are still many more challenges to be overcome. I am confident that this Bill will act as a catalyst for government and wider society to ensure that the transformation in the lives of disabled people from frustration to fulfilment is as swift as possible.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, this has been a splendid debate, which I have enjoyed enormously. I thank all noble Lords who took part, whatever their viewpoint—although with one or two speakers I would have liked a bit more give and less circumlocution. It is all very puzzling. My noble friend was right to point out what the Government have done. They have a good record, yet it is by no means good enough to satisfy the speakers in this debate. We have worked on this Bill for a long time. It is a marvellous Bill which is very necessary. Yet people say things such as "later on" and "we have not got the cash". Both parties, I think, would say that. That is fine, but if the Government want to save cash, why not save it from other budgets? Why always choose disabled people?
	To talk about 2025 is preposterous. Life chances is an outstanding report, but to refer to 2025 is ridiculous. We want specific commitments to working quickly. As I am not a Minister I can ask for this commitment. I know that Ministers have problems to face but I emphasise that the provisions in the Bill are fairly reasonable given the suffering of millions of people. Without these provisions, disabled people will have to go on for many more years in their present situation. The whole edifice of social care is rocky; there is so much wrong with it now. The Bill will connect all of those things. We do not want instant implementation but, equally, we do not want it to drag out, because, if it does, we will get nowhere.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, rightly spoke about earned income being disregarded. As to the technical points, I have had no letter from the Clerk. This afternoon I received a message from an official in the Public Bill Office asking me to go and see her. I found my way to the Public Bill Office, which is hidden away in the bowels of the Earth somewhere, and she pointed out all the technical points and asked whether I could deal with them. This was about 10 minutes before I was due to speak. I am not blaming her—she was very kind and helpful—but I told her that I could not master all of those points. It is like mathematics; I glaze over when I see figures like that. She said that we could deal with it at a later stage, and I agreed with that. So, if there is a Committee stage, we can deal with the points mentioned by the noble Baroness. The lady in the Public Bill Office agreed that that is the best approach, and I am sure we can handle it. I am very glad that the noble Baroness has raised these very important points. If we do not get them right, the whole Bill will crumble.
	My noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth is right: if we are not careful we will just be helping the worst-off, as we do now, and not those with moderate disabilities, who suffer almost as much as the severely disabled. We should strongly press the point that all disabled people, regardless of the degree of disability, should be compensated through this legislation. I agree with my noble friend that we are discovering many more disabled people of all kinds, of all races and colour, old and young. The Bill will specifically help young people but I do not have time to go into detail. I am sure my noble friend is right.
	My noble friend Lady Wilkins referred to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I am deeply moved by his illness. His wife accompanies him at home and here; they are a wonderful couple. I do not know how ill he is but I hope he makes a full recovery. He is a very tough guy. As Chief Whip he did not wield a stick, but he was persuasive. I send him my warmest regards through my noble friend Lady Wilkins.
	The Government have not done a cost-benefit analysis. We should have sorted that out much earlier but, one way or another, we must find out what the situation is. I am convinced that the Government do not recognise how much money could be saved through the Bill. They will save an enormous amount, and the costs are minimal. The Minister may be right in saying that it could be a heavy commitment, but heavy commitments do not necessarily mean heavy outgoings, especially if the other side of the equation—the savings—is taken into account. There are savings to be made through many thousands of people getting jobs, paying taxes, not going into hospital and so on. I fully agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said.
	I do not think the hour is too late, but there it is. I ask the House to give my Bill a Second Reading.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.